Thank you Zion for this arge overview of the anti-nuclear situation in Australia which O didn’t know before. If this gigantic land turns to nuclear this could change a lot of data around the world. And you should be thanked for that!
Excellent report on your Oz trip! And excellent analysis of the challenges of changing Australia’s attitude to nuclear power.
I’m an Aussie lomg-term resident in Hong Kong where we get one-third of our electricity from Daya Bay Nuclear power station. We could get even more excess nuclear from other plants in China, but don’t do so, again because of the fear-mongering by “Green” groups like Greenpeace. Grrrr…
Back to Oz: I’ve always thought it hugely hypocritical of Australia to mine and export uranium but not to use it ourselves. What? … We don’t mind India using our uranium, but it’s “too dangerous” for us??
I came to the conclusion some years ago that Greenpeace. Etc, are responsible for us having the high carbon dioxide emissions we now have. Were it not for them, we’d be pretty much net zero by now, at least in electricity.
Again, well done Zion Lights! You are a champion. I must try to get my three Oz-based children to read this!
The capsule was a from a nuclear density gauge. This is a common instrument used in mining, environmental engineering/consulting and other fields involving geophysics and geotechnical work. They're common.
We can manage risk from nuclear energy safely, from operation to used fuel cell storage, reprocessing, disposal, etc. We can't engineer away weather intermittency. No matter how much additional wind (at best 40% capacity factor, or % time it's generating at rated capacity) or solar (at best ~30% capacity) capacity one builds, that intermittency can't be overcome. Not by batteries, either.
We highlight Germany in several of our posts.
Finally, you mention DOE report that 80% of US coal plants suitable for nuclear power generation. Check out the natrium reactor. Cal Able does a nice job exploring it's varied capabilities on a recent Decouple Podcast.
Keep up the great work. People like you, Lomborg, Shellenberger are key, because of your past history of advocacy for a version of "environmentalism" quite different than all of you are advocating for today. We admire that openness and the courage to change course based on new information.
The Fair and Just Transition of workers and their communities away from coal thermal power generation may have an opportunity to transition to Hydrogen from coal with carbon capture and utilization for a decade, maybe more. However, ultimately if Zero Emission Power is required to halt climate change, then nuclear is the only proven pathway.
Importantly, regarding how Australia ended up voting on the prohibition on nuclear power reactors. "Just 10 Senators out of 76 were present. Three were there to vote for the prohibition (Greens and Australian Democrats), and the rest just accepted it without any opposition.
I agree with your analysis here. But it's not quite complete. On the energy supply side, Australia has huge amounts of high quality, easily extracted coal. The country never needed nuclear power because of the huge amounts of cheap coal. Pollution was not apparently a problem, as most of the generation was needed on the east coast, and the prevailing winds would simply blow the emissions out to sea.
Plus, for many years there was strong union support by the miners for coal mining meaning it was easily opposed to nuclear power. For these sorts of policy debates, always look to the economics for the underlying reasons.
Look for a decision in early August on the Australian Senate bill to lift nuclear prohibition:
"The bill would amend the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 to remove the prohibition on the construction or operation of certain nuclear installations; and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to remove the prohibition on the Minister for Environment and Water declaring, approving or considering actions relating to the construction or operation of certain nuclear installations."
Thank you Zion for this arge overview of the anti-nuclear situation in Australia which O didn’t know before. If this gigantic land turns to nuclear this could change a lot of data around the world. And you should be thanked for that!
Excellent report on your Oz trip! And excellent analysis of the challenges of changing Australia’s attitude to nuclear power.
I’m an Aussie lomg-term resident in Hong Kong where we get one-third of our electricity from Daya Bay Nuclear power station. We could get even more excess nuclear from other plants in China, but don’t do so, again because of the fear-mongering by “Green” groups like Greenpeace. Grrrr…
Back to Oz: I’ve always thought it hugely hypocritical of Australia to mine and export uranium but not to use it ourselves. What? … We don’t mind India using our uranium, but it’s “too dangerous” for us??
I came to the conclusion some years ago that Greenpeace. Etc, are responsible for us having the high carbon dioxide emissions we now have. Were it not for them, we’d be pretty much net zero by now, at least in electricity.
Again, well done Zion Lights! You are a champion. I must try to get my three Oz-based children to read this!
Peter Forsythe
Hong Kong
Nice work, Zion.
The capsule was a from a nuclear density gauge. This is a common instrument used in mining, environmental engineering/consulting and other fields involving geophysics and geotechnical work. They're common.
We can manage risk from nuclear energy safely, from operation to used fuel cell storage, reprocessing, disposal, etc. We can't engineer away weather intermittency. No matter how much additional wind (at best 40% capacity factor, or % time it's generating at rated capacity) or solar (at best ~30% capacity) capacity one builds, that intermittency can't be overcome. Not by batteries, either.
We highlight Germany in several of our posts.
Finally, you mention DOE report that 80% of US coal plants suitable for nuclear power generation. Check out the natrium reactor. Cal Able does a nice job exploring it's varied capabilities on a recent Decouple Podcast.
Keep up the great work. People like you, Lomborg, Shellenberger are key, because of your past history of advocacy for a version of "environmentalism" quite different than all of you are advocating for today. We admire that openness and the courage to change course based on new information.
Thanks Zion - really helpful. Do you have access to a graphic that shows volume of waste/ cost of waste disposal for each energy type?
The Fair and Just Transition of workers and their communities away from coal thermal power generation may have an opportunity to transition to Hydrogen from coal with carbon capture and utilization for a decade, maybe more. However, ultimately if Zero Emission Power is required to halt climate change, then nuclear is the only proven pathway.
Importantly, regarding how Australia ended up voting on the prohibition on nuclear power reactors. "Just 10 Senators out of 76 were present. Three were there to vote for the prohibition (Greens and Australian Democrats), and the rest just accepted it without any opposition.
https://www.brightnewworld.org/media/2018/10/18/history-of-australias-nuclear-prohibition-5ceab
https://www.minerals.org.au/sites/default/files/180605%20Removing%20the%20prohibition%20on%20nuclear%20power.pdf
I agree with your analysis here. But it's not quite complete. On the energy supply side, Australia has huge amounts of high quality, easily extracted coal. The country never needed nuclear power because of the huge amounts of cheap coal. Pollution was not apparently a problem, as most of the generation was needed on the east coast, and the prevailing winds would simply blow the emissions out to sea.
Plus, for many years there was strong union support by the miners for coal mining meaning it was easily opposed to nuclear power. For these sorts of policy debates, always look to the economics for the underlying reasons.
Look for a decision in early August on the Australian Senate bill to lift nuclear prohibition:
"The bill would amend the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 to remove the prohibition on the construction or operation of certain nuclear installations; and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to remove the prohibition on the Minister for Environment and Water declaring, approving or considering actions relating to the construction or operation of certain nuclear installations."
Speaking as an Australian, I can say that almost everything in this article is false and/or misleading.