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.
An indirect comparison of waste is given in "Direct vs. substituted primary energy: what are the multiple ways of energy accounting?" about 3/4 the way down in this link from Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
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."
Jim Green has absolutely no regard for evidence and, like all anti-nuclear fanatics, is an unwitting stooge of the fossil fuel industry. Friends of the Earth was established as a breakaway group from the Sierra Club (which initially supported nuclear energy because it is obviously fantastic for humans and the environment). Their primary concern was that nuclear energy would provide such cheap and abundant energy that the human population would grow, which they felt would be disastrous for the environment. Their initial funding was from a oil millionaire and the fossil fuel industry have supported them and other organization that oppose nuclear energy ever since.
This misanthropic approach backfired disastrously the population grew anyway powered by coal fired electricity.
So Friends of the Earth accelerated climate change and are responsible for our current crisis.
Nuclear energy is by far the safest form of reliable energy so all arguments against are not based on science.
Far more harm is done by excessive fear of radioactivity than by radioactivity itself.
This was tragically demonstrated after the Fukushima accident. Not one person was harmed by the released radioactivity and it is not expected than any harm will ever be detected.
All the harm was caused by the evacuation and the increased air pollution and energy prices that shutting down nuclear power in Japan and Germany resulted in.
Our only hope of getting to net zero is through expansion of nuclear energy.
It is technically impossible to do this with renewable energy like solar and wind. No country has ever come close.
Anyone opposing nuclear energy is exposing humanity to the risk of catastrophic climate change.
Jim Green will be viewed in the same category as Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
Anton, I see from your bio you're at Oxford. No doubt you've read Wade Allison's two books "Radiation and Reason" and "Nuclear is for Life" He writes from extensive experience in physics, nuclear topics and medicine. Solid work!
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?
An indirect comparison of waste is given in "Direct vs. substituted primary energy: what are the multiple ways of energy accounting?" about 3/4 the way down in this link from Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
Thanks Shandy!
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
There will be another vote due in early August. Hopefully more Senators show up for this one: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions You might surmise from the numerous (i.e. 4 so far) delays for the vote means that it's highly contentious, and they want to do it justice this time.
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.
Jim Green has absolutely no regard for evidence and, like all anti-nuclear fanatics, is an unwitting stooge of the fossil fuel industry. Friends of the Earth was established as a breakaway group from the Sierra Club (which initially supported nuclear energy because it is obviously fantastic for humans and the environment). Their primary concern was that nuclear energy would provide such cheap and abundant energy that the human population would grow, which they felt would be disastrous for the environment. Their initial funding was from a oil millionaire and the fossil fuel industry have supported them and other organization that oppose nuclear energy ever since.
This misanthropic approach backfired disastrously the population grew anyway powered by coal fired electricity.
So Friends of the Earth accelerated climate change and are responsible for our current crisis.
Nuclear energy is by far the safest form of reliable energy so all arguments against are not based on science.
Far more harm is done by excessive fear of radioactivity than by radioactivity itself.
This was tragically demonstrated after the Fukushima accident. Not one person was harmed by the released radioactivity and it is not expected than any harm will ever be detected.
All the harm was caused by the evacuation and the increased air pollution and energy prices that shutting down nuclear power in Japan and Germany resulted in.
Our only hope of getting to net zero is through expansion of nuclear energy.
It is technically impossible to do this with renewable energy like solar and wind. No country has ever come close.
Anyone opposing nuclear energy is exposing humanity to the risk of catastrophic climate change.
Jim Green will be viewed in the same category as Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
Anton, I see from your bio you're at Oxford. No doubt you've read Wade Allison's two books "Radiation and Reason" and "Nuclear is for Life" He writes from extensive experience in physics, nuclear topics and medicine. Solid work!
Exactly Anton, my sentiments as well..
I understand that Zion Lights was sucked into a pro-nuclear position by serial liar and narcissist Michael Shellenberger? I only mention that because all of Anton's nonsense sounds a lot like Shellenberger. https://nuclear.foe.org.au/michael-shellenbergers-pro-nuclear-lobby-group-environmental-progress/