JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Suddenly Nuclear Energy is popular

The Gösgen Nuclear Power Plant (in German Kernkraftwerk Gösgen, abbreviated in KKG) is located in the Däniken municipality (canton of Solothurn, Switzerland)

The Gösgen Nuclear Power Plant  by Pareixk Federi

The global energy crisis is squeezing the green religion to its logical endpoint. As long as we pretend “carbon” is pollution, the only way out of the maze for badgered politicians is nuclear power. The renewables industry may have thought that beating us over the head with climate propaganda was going to make renewables dominant and profitable, but it may just push everyone into nukes instead.

With the gas price crisis, wind drought, and coal shortage, suddenly everyone is talking about nuclear power:

Nations Go Nuclear As Prices Spike & Renewables Fail

Michael Shellenberger

National leaders around the world are announcing big plans to return to nuclear energy now that the cost of natural gas, coal, and petroleum are spiking, and weather-dependent renewables are failing to deliver.

France was reducing nukes from 70% to 50% of its total power generation fleet, but not any more:

“The number one objective is to have innovative small-scale nuclear reactors in France by 2030 along with better waste management,” said French President Emmanuel Macron.

 “But the mood has now changed,” the paper writes today. “Macron said on Tuesday he would begin investing in new nuclear projects ‘very quickly.’”  — Financial Times.

Public support for nuclear energy rose 17 percentage points in France. “I do not want our country to lose its energy sovereignty under the pretext of an absurd energy transition copied from Germany,” said a conservative French presidential candidate seeking to defeat Macron.

Finland has joined France, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic in lobbying the European Union to categorize nuclear power as sustainable.

Yesterday, Japan’s new prime minister, Fumio Kishida, defended his pro-nuclear policies in Parliament. Kishida came to power on a pro-nuclear platform.

Half of Australia wants nuclear power

The AUKUS “nuclear subs” announcement was a bolt from the blue after decades of Nuclear-free energy debates. But a recent poll shows Australians are rapidly growing to like the idea.  Of course, electricity prices have rocketed since 2015 too, adding to the shift.

In 2015, forty percent of Australians supported it, and forty percent opposed it, and one hundred percent of politicians avoided discussing it. Now suddenly, we’ve bought a couple of nuclear subs and in a blink 50% support nuclear power and only 30% oppose it.

Just like that, and with no discussion, suddenly nuclear power has potential. Imagine what the numbers would be if people actually discussed it?

The bottom line is that the West had better hurry.

China is the Fastest growing Nuclear Power in the world

As Jo Nova said in May:

China is poised to be the largest global nuclear power by 2030, overtaking the USA in the next nine years. In the last twenty years, China has increased its fleet of nuclear power reactors from three to 49, with 17 more plants under construction. That means it will soon surpass France which has 57 reactors. At the rate the USA is closing plants, China may hit the No 1 spot faster than expected.

China has a nuclear Belt and Road project too, Argentina, Iran, Pakistan:

Future projects are also being developed in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and South America

Brown coal is still the cheapest kind of electricity there is, and we are mad not to use it, especially because it’s only $30 a MWh and  feeds plants and we have a 300 year supply sitting there in the ground.

Rise of Nuclear Power in China. Graph.

Rise of Nuclear Power in China. Graph.

9.8 out of 10 based on 82 ratings

269 comments to Suddenly Nuclear Energy is popular

  • #
    Jojodogfacedboy

    Will countries economies collapse first before they get powered up again?
    It takes awhile to build them after years of government’s consultations as we currently have with our western politicians.

    300

    • #
      Lawrie

      My concern is that China will use the collapse of the West’s power supply as a second string to their engineered disease to completely weaken the opposition before launching their version of “The Great Co-Prosperity Sphere”. Our ability to respond to a Chinese threat has been seriously compromised in the past few years with the gradual but continual attack on our manufacturing sector through power prices and union demands, the installation of a Socialist administration in the US through CCP interference and with the help of many globalists who hate the concept of the nation state and the coup de grace, a disease that caused such an over-reaction that economies are weakened to the point of destruction. Debt is so high the simple answer has been to just print money devaluing that which is in the hands of the savers. The Chinese with their filthy rich enablers have won and our elected representatives and our media have allowed it and in many cases aided it.

      411

      • #
        Ted1

        I find it hard to believe that China would do itself an injury to hurt somebody else. Those idle ships might have been held up by COVID in the wider economy. It would be easy to link them to the current reports of power shortages, but I doubt that it would have been deliberate.

        I just got a flash email from the Telegraph, Peter Ridd lost in the High Court. The world has got a lot darker, and the week is not yet half gone.

        104

        • #
          BriantheEngineer

          I find it hard to believe they would hurt themselves in the short term for long term global domination.

          40

          • #

            I like your sense of humour.

            We all know exactly how much the communists care about the people.

            200

          • #
            Bruce

            China has been stockpiling all manner of strategic goodies for well over a decade. Everything from bulk fuel oil to the rare earths on which they now have a stranglehold.. They have not seemed to have been as keen on stockpiling food reserves for the general populace. japan has been operating some interesting rice storage schemes for decades.

            The PLA is the controlling force in who gets to have what and for what purpose in this global game.

            See also: Who SAYS what to whom.

            30

        • #
          Hanrahan

          History says China will sacrifice millions X 10 for political ends.

          Putin is my great disappointment. He is intelligent and boss of a country which has stagnated as a result of Stalin’s purges and wartime losses in frontal charges done with only one third having rifles. The idea was that a survivor picked up a weapon from the dead.

          Russia today has a GDP little more than Italy’s. You would think he would care. Maybe I listened too closely to Sting.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq9FZ8e6d1Q

          40

  • #
    Simon

    There really really is a “carbon budget” beyond which global warming becomes dangerous. Thermal coal should be a last resort for electricity generation. Coal is an expensive option, the marginal cost of power generation from renewable energy sources is $0, that’s why they are called renewables. Nuclear energy is an option but it has to be managed carefully.

    2100

    • #
      Lawrie

      Your comment Simon is utterly ridiculous. When CO2 was ten times the current level the earth was in an ice age so there seems little correlation let alone causation. Coal produces cheap energy and plant food, a wonderful combination. And nuclear has been managed “carefully” for decades to the great advantage of those smart enough to use it. Best not go outside today Simon as I heard the sky was falling.

      941

      • #
        Simon

        Oh really? What ice age would that be? https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change
        There have debatably been “Snowball Earth” configurations with high CO2 conditions but you have to go back 650 million years.
        Facts please, not fiction.

        248

        • #
          Philip

          I’d expect 650 million years ago physics were the same.

          440

        • #

          Read Dire Predictions by IPCC poster boy Michael Mann, (the hockey stick man), page 85, where he says the levels of CO2 in the ice age 130 million years ago at around 2000ppm, compared to today’s much lower level somewhere between 300-400 depending on who you believe, is an ‘anomaly yet to be explained’. By the modelling in that book published in 2008 we should already be at that 1.5 C increase we are supposed to be avoiding to prevent extinction.. But we are 0.4C lower despite the fact CO2 levels are much higher than predicted back then. Another anomaly yet to be explained.

          350

        • #
          jpm

          It was actually 450 to 420 million years ago that is in question. The atmospheric CO2 concentrations was over 11 times greater than at present during an ice age! It didn’t provide much warming then did it?
          John

          270

          • #
            Serp

            Imagine how much more ice there would have been without that carbon dioxide level!

            An interesting exercise for the noddies pursuing the carbon madness would be to calculate what carbon dioxide level is notionally required entirely to eliminate creation of ice without transforming earth into another Venus.

            110

        • #
          clarence.t

          Yes Simon, we know that CO2 follows temperature.

          Thanks for proving it cannot be the cause of the temperature rise. 🙂

          Still waiting for your facts to support warming by atmospheric CO2.

          Please, no more fiction and baseless mantra links.

          210

          • #
            Simon

            Please study the peer-reviewed scientific literature. It does not say what you think it does.
            https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

            115

            • #
              el+gordo

              ‘ … the state of knowledge about possible climate futures …’

              World temperature will show a downward trend over the coming decade. Keep your eyes on ENSO, its the temperature control knob and El Nino is AWOL

              60

            • #
              clarence.t

              Please show us where in that piece of political propaganda they prove that CO2 causes warming.

              I have asked you to pin-point this before, and you have failed completely.

              90

            • #
              TedM

              Simon you have cherry picked an IPCC report. Most of the peer review literature concurs with Clarence’s comment.

              40

        • #
          John in Oz

          I looked at your reference and this is the same (or similar) graph that Al Bore (sic) used to scare us all.

          Except the temp changes occur BEFORE the CO2 changes. Cause and effect, anyone???

          You might wish to look (blinkers off) further than your reference that shows the finer detail of temp vs CO2 levels.

          90

        • #
          Lance

          Um, that would be the Ordovician Period.

          CO2 levels 11 to 16 times present day. It was an Ice Age for 500,000 years. No man made CO2 at all. Completely natural.

          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/shock-news-there-was-an-ice-age-during-the-ordovician-with-co2-1500-of-current-values/

          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/ice-age-at-2000-ppm-co2/

          110

          • #
            Simon

            Ordovician climate cooling was driven by decreases in atmospheric CO2.
            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1342937X20302756

            019

            • #
              clarence.t

              They “say ” it was, but don’t prove it. Its a supposition.

              Funny the way the cover it .. “for reasons that are not fully resolved”

              Then of course they say the “sinks” were changing

              Since long-term CO2 sinks are largely controlled by palaeogeography, the general increase in the concentration of continents in the tropics during the Ordovician increased the overall global weathering.

              Continents clustering in warmer areas.. more growth, sucks up that CO2.

              And of course, anyone with a science background knows that long term cooling ocean would cause a drop in atmospheric CO2 as well.

              Thank goodness there is above plant-subsistence levels of CO2 at the moment.

              The coming cooling trend won’t cause too much drop in CO2 availability.

              80

            • #
              Lance

              CO2 levels followed the cooling. That’s what oceans do. Absorb CO2 under cooling conditions.

              90

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              You might note that at 4400 ppm in the Ordovician, the earth’s temperature was roughly the same as it is today! AND an ice age occurred while CO2 was over 4,000 ppm! It dropped from the end of the Ordovician to around 3,000 in the Silurian as the temperature rose to much the same as the Cambrian.
              As the CO2 rose to 4,000 in the Devonian the temperature stayed the same, but as the CO2 dropped to around 1100 the temperature was only slightly lower.
              In the Carboniferous CO2 continued to drop to around 350-400 but the temp. remained stable for millions of years, then it suddenly declined into another ice age (or possibly series).
              In the mid Permian the temperature suddenly started climbing (to above Cambrian level) followed by the CO2 which got to around 2000ppm by the beginning of the Triassic. The temperature stabilised until the middle Jurassic while the CO2 dropped to around 14-1500. Then the CO2 level rose to around 2500-2700 p.p.m. at which time the temp. declined sharply.
              From the beginning of the Cretaceous the CO2 dropped from around 2100 to 800 as the temperature remained high. (Others now claim that the temperature MUST have dropped because the CO2 was lower).
              In the Tertiary the CO2 and temp dropped, with Antarctic ice cap formation in the oligocene when the CO2 was around 1000-1100. Then the CO2 dropped to around 550 p.p.m. but the temperature went UP!
              It is obvious that the earth was as confused about the warming effect of CO2 as many are today!

              60

    • #
      R.B.

      There really is a Santa Claus. A fictional character but he exists.

      160

      • #
        Richard+Jenkins

        I have never lied to my children or any other child. How can they trust you if you have lied?
        I never confirmed or denied Santa, Easter bunny or Tooth fairy. They can make assumptions to placate their peers socialy innocently.
        They put their tooth/teeth in a glass, carrot out and hung Christmas stockings and that behavior was rewarded without lies.
        As their curiosity developed logically the bunny and fairy could be explained.
        The origins of Easter and the Easter egg is great education from pagan times when man worshipped Spring.
        Similarly I could tell them I believe in St Nicholas. Both the supposed approximately 400 AD, and 1200 AD events have created a Santa spirit that has children get gifts at Christmas. I could not address the North pole nonsense but clearly many people work to help gifts appear. Flying deers are insulting.
        As adults and teenagers my children and their children know I would never lie to them. That taught them to be skeptical and seek data and its origin.
        That did not mean argue with teachers. Teachers sometimes have misinformation but respect ‘opinions’ . I encouraged them to seek truth and review with their peers.
        Write what the teachers wanted to read for good marks and let the propaganda be the teacher. My children are popular and their peers seek truth
        My favourite answer is,”I don’t know!” because I am honest and don’t make stuff up to be authoritive beyond my actual knowledge.
        Fairytales are unnecessary and nature, history, geography and maths are great fun. At 4 binary numbers make place value obvious. Maths is fun.

        60

    • #
      Hanrahan

      Coal too is free. No one writes a cheque to the maker.

      Coal, wind and sun are ALL free but they all have costs associated in the harnessing. Untaxed and unsubsidised, coal is the cheaper.

      700

      • #
        BriantheEngineer

        Hi Hanrahan
        Coal is not free it has to be mined, beautified and transported to expensive generators, but yes it is much cheaper the renewables, inclusive of all costs for both.

        10

        • #
          PeterPetrum

          I think the point that Hanrahan is making is that when comparing coal with turbines or solar panels is that, once the costs of mining, manufacture, transport and construction are taken into consideration, coal is a resource that is “free” to be taken by anyone who owns the resource.

          50

          • #
            Ronin

            What price can you put on reliability, something that is necessary with electrical power, it’s no good if it isn’t there when you need it.

            20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Obviously Simon you are not an engineer nor an accountant nor, I surmise, have ever had any experience with industrial projects.
      What is marginal cost? That which is left over after you ignore the all real ones?
      What you are saying is that the wind blows free (some of the time) and the sun shines (some of the time), something that requires little intellectual understanding.
      Now include the actual (or total) cost of turning that into a constant, reliable supply of electricity and you may get a little credibility.
      (I’ll give you a HINT, everywhere that renewables have been introduced has seen a rapid rise in electricity costs).

      680

      • #

        One of our leader of the German Greens once told, renewable energy won’t coast not more than a bullet of icecream.
        It’s now a ton of golden icecream , isn’t it ?

        240

    • #

      There really really is a “carbon budget” beyond which global warming becomes dangerous

      Show us the danger !! I and most of others doen’t see any..just the opposite.

      410

      • #
        clarence.t

        I think Simon sees a danger in to much increase in world crop yields.

        There is certainly no other danger except from the implementation of anti-CO2 agendas, destroying energy supply systems.

        Certainly, “the climate” couldn’t care less about an increase in atmospheric CO2.

        280

        • #
          Muzza

          We are collectively addressing the increase in crop yields by covering arable land with useless mirrors and windmills, and thereby reducing the actual yields. We will be able to virtue signal but not feed our population. What clever bunnies we are – not……..

          250

    • #
      clarence.t

      “There really really is a “carbon budget” beyond which global warming becomes dangerous. “

      What a ludicrous scientifically unsupportable statement.

      CO2 does not cause warming,

      You have shown many times that there is no scientific evidence to back up the most basic conjecture of the AGW farce.

      350

      • #
        Ian

        “CO2 does not cause warming,”

        This is what the Daily Telegraph has to say.

        “For decades the issue of climate change has bedevilled Australian governments on both sides of politics. It has led to the downfall of at least two prime ministers and been used as a political dagger by the hard left and a political battering ram by the hard right.

        Today we are putting an end to all of that so we can put Australia on a path to a Net Zero future that will not just benefit the environment but benefit our economy, create jobs and save households money.

        Here you will find brilliant ideas and initiatives Australians have come up with to enable Aussie industries and Aussie families to not just survive but thrive in the new clean economy.

        You’ll also find fascinating and inspirational stories of ordinary Australians — and some extraordinary ones too — who have devoted themselves to tackling some of the toughest and trickiest issues in the journey to net zero.

        “Headed up by project lead Joe Hildebrand, News Corp’s National Environment reporter David Mills and senior reporters Paul Starick, John Rolfe, John Dagge, Matt Killoran, Clare Armstrong, Anthony Keane and Melanie Burgess.

        https://joannenova.com.au/2021/10/suddenly-nuclear-energy-is-popular/#comments

        Please note I make no personal comment I’m just showing material from News Corp.

        110

        • #
          OldOzzie

          Going Nuclear – The Clean Energy Debate hosted by Chris Kenny, airs on Monday October 25 at 8pm AEDST on Sky News Australia.

          The Clean Energy Debate: New Sky News documentary lifts the lid on renewable energy

          A new Sky News documentary will lift the lid on renewable energy, and reveal why nuclear power is the answer to Australia’s energy challenges.

          Chris Kenny Sky News Anchor

          Getting up close and personal with Australia’s energy challenge is a fascinating and daunting experience. That is what I have done over the past few months, visiting sites, and talking to experts about the energy and climate goal of net zero green house gas emissions by 2050.

          Activists and politicians often tell us this will be an easy task, full of “green jobs”.

          But they are spinning a big lie – on current technology, using renewable energy and storage, it simply cannot be done.

          Peering up at wind turbines you hear the blades cut the air and the generators whirr. But other times they stand motionless, silenced in the doldrums, producing not a volt of electricity.

          On the edge of the Hay Plain you can squint across a million gleaming panels at Australia’s largest solar farm. But as the landscape turns crimson at sunset, the panels are done for the day.

          People love renewable energy, and why not? If we could power our electricity-hungry lives on endless, clean sunshine and wind, we would not want to bother with anything else.

          But take an evening ferry to Sydney’s Darling Harbour, walk Melbourne’s Southbank after dinner or watch sunset in Perth’s Kings Park, and the lights of the cities tell you our thirst for energy is relentless, day and night. We expect power when we need it, and renewables just are not reliable.

          The only renewable power that is not intermittent is hydro. But you need mountains and plentiful water, which is fine for New Zealand or Norway, but in Australia, apart from Tasmania and the Snowy scheme, hydro just will not cut it.

          And batteries are not the answer. We could spend $19 billion building more than 200 of those “world’s biggest” batteries that they built in South Australia, and it would power our national grid for just one hour.

          To see how much the world needs and values energy I went to the Hunter Valley and Newcastle where mines, trains, conveyor belts, and ships work relentlessly to export 160 million tonnes of coal a year, fuelling China, South Korea and Japan.

          As if to highlight the futility of climate gestures, the port infrastructure runs on 100 per cent renewable energy – probably saving the amount of emissions produced by a couple of dozen of the 1.6 million railway trucks of coal they shift annually.

          So, what is the answer? Well, it is literally under our noses.

          Australia also exports uranium, and it generates enough emissions-free power overseas to make up for our annual carbon emissions. Yet we refuse to use this safe, reliable and emissions-free energy ourselves.

          A reactor – used for research and nuclear medicine – has operated safely at Lucas Heights, on the southern fringe of Sydney suburbia for seven decades. We plan to run nuclear submarines too; so our aversion to nuclear energy defies logic.

          If we want reliable energy without greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear is the answer. I have spoken to prominent environmentalists here and overseas who have come to that conclusion.

          160

          • #
            Ian

            Chris Kenny states

            “If we want reliable energy without greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear is the answer. I have spoken to prominent environmentalists here and overseas who have come to that conclusion.”

            Really?? Has Kenny only just found that out? Wow! What a journalist!

            The world’s first nuclear power station to generate electricity for a power grid, started up in 1954. That’s 67 years ago. Kenny is well adrift of reality. I wonder if Sky will change it’s stance on climate change in view of News Corp decision to push for zero emissions by 2050. Possibly not as Sky will have noted Fox tried to junk Trump but lost viewers as a result and Sky would not want to lose the climate doubters even though they are in the minority in Australia and in many other countries

            016

            • #
              PeterPetrum

              Chris Kenny has spoken to “prominent environmentalists who have come to that conclusion”.

              It is not Kenny who had suddenly had an epiphany, but the environmentalists.

              You should check your target before pulling the trigger.

              60

              • #
                Ronin

                Those prominent environmentalists are late to the party, if it wasn’t for them, we could have been building nuclear plants from the 70’s.

                31

        • #
          clarence.t

          ““For decades the issue of climate change has bedevilled Australian governments on both sides of politics.”

          Yes, everyone who has gone down that path has lost the election.

          The one realist won a whole heap of extra seat for his party, but was then white-anted by the Turnbull linos.

          90

          • #
            Ian

            “Then why post the quote up the top ?”

            I usually do quote from the comment to which I am replying to clarify to which comment I am replying.. Just as you felt it necessary in your comment 2.6.2.1 to state ” Was a reply to Ian’s comment.'” to clarify to which comment you were replying

            13

        • #
          Mark Allinson

          ” I’m just showing material from News Corp”

          A good example of why News Corp will never get my subscription again.

          00

        • #
          TedM

          So the “Daily Telegraph” is now a scientific publication Ian.

          20

      • #
        clarence.t

        Yes, you have not shown anything that counters the statement “CO2 does not cause warming,”

        90

    • #
      clarence.t

      “the marginal cost of power generation from renewable energy sources is $0, that’s why they are called renewables”

      Which is why countries with the highest amounts of wind energy, have the highest electricity costs in the world. 😉

      You are wrong anyway, the marginal costs are quite high because of the cost of implementing them into the grid and particularly keeping the grid stable.

      380

    • #
      yarpos

      ah yes the unprecedented catastrophic tipping point that is always just over the horizon

      In reality land the greenies have stuffed up yet again. Lead/bullied the world down a dead end yet again. Wasted time and money yet again. Now the world smacks into reality and starts to do what it could have been doing 20 years and many billions of dollars ago

      250

    • #
      Lance

      Hm. Beg to Differ:

      In 2017, the marginal cost of generating power from an existing coal station is less than $40/MWh, while wind power is $60-70/MWh.

      Based on recent prices for newly installed wind power of around $60-70/MWh, and recent price projections for new supercritical coal power at around $75/MWh, it is reasonable to say that – as things stand today – wind power would be cheaper than coal as a new-build source of electricity.

      https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-is-coal-still-cheaper-than-renewables-as-an-energy-source-81263

      But: All of that Wind power requires dispatchable back up power if you happen to like reliability. So, you get twice the generation at twice the cost to get the reliability you had with coal/nuke generation in the first place. Let’s call it $150/MWh to get fully backed up wind power.

      260

      • #

        I see. you are able to use a calculator, the Greens are not 😀

        140

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Hi Lance,
        I won’t go to the conversation page, but the costings of power seem to be Green costings and have clouded the picture deliberately; the use of the term marginal is a clue that green economics is in play.

        The only legitimate comparison is to have the cost for each system to supply 240V 50Hz at the meter. Over the long haul the replacement cost of basic plant and equipment must be factored in as part of the comparison and this puts the “marginal” cost of 15 to 20 year renewables seriously in the red.

        70

    • #
      David Maddison

      Simon, the wind and sun might be “free” but the cost of harvesting them is huge. Just ask any yacht sailor about the costs of harvesting “free” wind.

      200

    • #
      Alistair Crooks

      Simon, I don’t know where you think all the coal in the ground came from if it didn’t come originally from the atmosphere? During the Archaen atmospheric CO2 was more than 60% (that’s 600,000 ppm) and yet there was still liquid water on the surface of the earth as demonstrated by the Archaen alluvial goldfield at Witwatersrand and Archaen stromatolites at Jack Hills WA. That’s science. Factor it into your hypothesis. I’m afraid that if you think 400ppm + is gong to heat the surface up to something approaching “dangerous” you’re going to be disappointed.

      220

      • #
        Simon

        and the sun’s luminosity was only 70% compared to today. No free oxygen either. Next era please.

        127

        • #
          clarence.t

          “Next era please.”

          Modern era, highly beneficial slight warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years

          Driven by a series of strong solar maxima and cloud changes over the tropics

          https://i.postimg.cc/FFDD8LWc/Solar_Proxy_paleo_BE.jpg

          Zero effect from atmospheric CO2.

          30

        • #
          Kneel

          It all wears a bit thin, Simon.

          In 1988, we had 10 years to turn it around or it would be too late.
          In 1998, same thing.
          In 2008, same thing.
          In 2018, same thing.
          In 2020, we had 12 years.

          Talk about crying “Wolf!” – over 30 years of “we have only 10 years…”.
          Sure, whatever.

          One thing you need to understand about climate scientists – when they say “things are worse than we thought”, they aren’t talking about actual climate and weather, they’re talking about their ability to reliably predict future outcomes! That’s the only conclusion you can reach based on facts on the ground.

          80

      • #
        Ted1

        The one thing we know for sure about Carbon is that all the fossil carbon used to be in the atmosphere.

        50

    • #
      Popeye26

      Aaah Simon,

      You are SIMPLY wrong yet again.

      Read this article and you may end up more knowledgeable than you currently demonstrate.

      If you don’t learn SOMETHING from this then you are a wasted cause.

      Cheers,

      80

    • #
      William Astley

      Simon….

      And of course all of the ‘renewable’ green stuff has hydrocarbon real power plants ensuring that there is 24/7 power to the citizens. 24/7 power is the constraint.

      Wind and sun gathering cannot be used to expand a power grid without 100% real power plant 24/7 backup…. 365 days.

      Germany has the most expensive electricity in the world… .. because Germans must pay for two power systems. The Green system that produces energy when the sun shines and wind blows and a real power system that provides power 24/7 365.

      Wind gathering and gathering equipment wears out and must be replaced in 20 years.

      And the large power lines and switching equipment, transformers that have all been installed to enable wind gathering in remote locations to the locations where the power is required…. will need to be replaced/repair. … In Germany a 500 Kv DC power line all wear out, require power to build, and to operate. The 500 Kv DC power line is failing as it cannot handle the swings in power.

      40

    • #
      Forrest Gardener

      Wow Simon. That is quite an effort. Seventy downvotes and rising.

      Great trolling!

      40

    • #
      Chris

      Why is it that nobody discusses Mars? Atmosphere 94.5% CO2, no water vapour. Daytime temperature +35c . Night time temperature -80c. If CO2 held heat then Mars would be a lot warmer at night.

      Please explain Simon.

      50

    • #
      TedM

      Just checked the nem watch widget Simon. It’s a really good day for wind power in SA. It’s actually just touched 50% of it’s capacity. No wonder solar and wind power are referred to as unreliables.

      10

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    It’s a fact that there have been too many Nuclear disasters associated with electricity generation.

    Unfortunately these have more to do with greed, cost cutting during construction and extension of operation beyond the engineered design life than any inherent danger with nuclear systems. These plants have been “engineered” to operate safely and if you stretch the limit you risk breaking something.

    It’s also a fact that coal fired generators have evolved over the last seventy years to the point, where now, Ultra Super Critical Coal Fired Power Plants are essentially pollution free and are the cheapest option bar none.

    Gone are the days when coal fired plants were the source of smelly unhealthy off gases and a rain of black soot.

    So USC is not only the best, but it also reduces CO2 production, if that really was an issue, by fifteen percent compared with current coal fired systems.

    The fact that The Green world has not gone for that 15% tells us a lot.

    The recent Fukushima nuclear “disaster” was actually government sponsored.

    Government failed to insist that the plant be correctly located in relation to known issues like “big waves”.

    Government failed to require the plants closure when it reached the end of its engineered life and it’s not hard to imagine that money was involved in both these factors.

    Looking at the lessons learnt from the past, Three Mile island, Chernobyl etc and the huge numbers of nuclear plants in many countries, it’s not hard to picture a safe nuclear path for Australia.

    Cost will initially be more than USC but the savings compared with the current deplorable renewables will be highly welcomed.

    Integrate Nuclear.

    380

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      And, the comment above reads like something that The Heir to the British Throne would say.
      Come on Scotty, come on up and save the planet.

      130

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      K.K.
      My mind immediately thought of the Battersea power station in London, nicknamed Old Smokey from the black soot (partly due to the use of a cheap but inferior grade of coal). Retro fitting scrubbers wasn’t much of a success and it was closed in 1977. Despite that pictures turned up in “green articles” for at least 24 years afterwards.
      My calculations say that switching to Super Critical Coal Fired Power Plants in Australia would reduce CO2 emissions from electricity generation by 22-23% or 0.05% of world emissions. The greatest reduction would come in Victoria where emissions from brown coal would drop 32-35%.
      And NOTE, that is not the Ultra grade but only the figures from those power stations currently running. Using Ultra Super Critical we may well reduce the World’s current emissions by another 0.01% (unless of course we switch to EVs when our emissions from power stations must rise).

      As for nuclear accidents only a stupid uncontrolled (and obsolete) Chernobyl really qualifies as a loss of life, but the relentless, never ceasing propaganda against nuclear has left many thinking that it is too dangerous. A story, a Geologist friend was involved with a government Dept. who had a problem with a small plastic bag of uranium oxide in the warehouse. This was isolated on a shelf and the debate about what to do raged for months. Exasperated my friend went to the warehouse and told the storekeeper to go and ‘have a cuppa’ (which the ‘knowing’ storekeeper readily agreed). He then took the plastic bag and drove to the docks where (by prior arrangement) it was dropped into a drum of ‘yellow oxide’ from the mine before it was shipped overseas. As any geologist will tell you the average person has no idea what half-life means, so the Greens can get away with nonsense such as “highly radioactive with a half life of 250,000 years”. Yet isotopes that are highly radioactive are made at Lucas Heights for the nearby hospitals radiotherapy as they don’t remain active long enough to ship interstate.
      For all that, I don’t think that nuclear is the complete answer. Enthusiasts for Thorium overlook that molten salt types have no history (I think the first one started up last month in China near the Gobi) and that thorium can be used in most reactors anyway. Small modular reactors seem, for some reason, to be 10 years away (except in Russia) but in any case nuclear reactors are ill suited to dealing with the output variations from renewables.

      100

      • #
        HB

        no history with Molten Salt Reactor try
        molten salt reactor at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) researching this technology through the 1960s; constructed by 1964, it went critical in 1965 and was operated until 1969.
        from wiki

        40

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Agreed, but that isn’t the design (or designs) that are being touted.
          I could also point out that (multiple) homogeneous reactors have been in use for 60 years without incident, but these are/were all small (less than 10MW). Supposedly Russia was planning a 170MW version in a remote area but haven’t got any reference.

          40

          • #

            Meet Oklo, the Earth’s Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor

            Physicist Francis Perrin sat at a nuclearfuel-processing plant down in the south of France, thinking to himself: “This cannot be possible.” It was 1972. On the one hand, there was a dark piece of radioactive natural uranium ore, extracted from a mine in Africa. On the other, accepted scientific data about the constant ratio of radioactive uranium in ore.

            Examination of this high-grade ore from a mine in Gabon was found to contain a lower proportion of uranium-235 (U-235) — the fissile sort. Only a tiny bit less, but enough to make the researchers sit back and scratch their heads.

            70

      • #
        David

        Good comments.

        A counter to the half life scaring is that many toxic elements such as selenium, arsenic, lead don’t have a half life. They are in the environment for ever!

        80

    • #
      yarpos

      or you could talk about all the reactors in France that have been humming along for decades and propping up western Europe

      150

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        As I understand the French reactors are of 3 types; the oldest run full bore unless down for maintenance or re-fueling. The second run full bore (except for the usual) but “load following” comes from diverting the steam into the cooling towers (wasting it) when output has to be lowered. The more modern ones have some “load following” capacity using control rods.
        But France also has (or had) 15% capacity in hydro, as well as access to Spain, Germany, Italy and Belgium. These then were connected to elsewhere in the EU (and Switzerland) and could absorb excess production (if cheap enough). The Swiss saved money for years getting cheap electricity from France (via perpetually deficient Italy) for their pumped hydro.
        We don’t have much pumped hydro and do not have connections to huge users elsewhere.

        100

  • #
    David Maddison

    Nuclear power is great but rational thinkers shouldn’t fall into the trap of supporting it over other reliable energy generators such as fossil fuel power stations because they think it’s more acceptable to ignorant people due to it not producing “carbon pollution” (sic).

    The sole arbiter of whether to use nuclear or fossil fuels should be based on economic viability in a free market context. It should be up to the free market place alone. In some circumstances nuclear will be cheaper, in others it will be coal or gas. It, of course, will never be wind or solar.

    Even unreliable energy generators have a role to play in the free market. Presumably Leftists would enjoy buying their (unsubsidised) electricity from such sources as wind and solar and will like paying three or four times the price for it compared to reliable energy generators although in a free market nobody should be forced to buy the unreliables as happen now. Only those willing and prepared to pay for it should use it and other consumers or taxpayers should not subsidise it.

    390

    • #
      Steve of Cornubia

      I am quite happy for ‘environmental costs’ to be calculated for all types of power generation. In principle, it’s a good idea.

      However …

      We all know that the Left has infiltrated and hijacked pretty much all of our governing institutions and those that provide data and intelligence that informs government policy, along with the media, so it becomes impossible to perform in an accurate and honest fashion. Just like the idea of ‘hate speech’, there’s nothing much wrong with the idea, but we all know that putting it into law means that those same leftists will be the ones policing and enforcing it, thus turning it into a political weapon.

      Accepting the idea of ‘environmental cost’ and incorporating it into our decision-making would produce the same result – the Left would take control of it and bend it to their own ends.

      110

  • #
    David Maddison

    With a more rational attitude to nuclear, Australia could make a fortune offering nuclear waste disposal services for the world in deep, geologically stable bore holes.

    Of course, that is after the “waste” is properly reprocessed and the energy used. Sadly in the civilian nuclear fuel cycle, the “waste” has about 99% of its useful energy left. It can be extracted with breeder reactors. The waste product after that is relatively benign.

    180

    • #
      Graeme#4

      If Australia used thorium reactors, would there be a need to process or store nuclear waste?

      00

      • #
        David Maddison

        There is still nuclear waste but the volume is substantially less plus the waste products decay within a few hundred years.

        In any case, despite the lies told by the Left, there really is no insoluble problem storing waste from conventional reactors.

        The Oklo natural nuclear reactor also proved waste products didn’t migrate in that situation.

        20

  • #
    R.B.

    There was an Australian chemist in the mid 50s working for the UN to promote nuclear energy. He would also talk about how the world had warmed up a degree and this could be due to rising CO2 levels. He pointed a few reasons for it, including human emissions as well as natural, and suggested reviving Callendar’s theory.

    Callendar’s theory was revived in 1962, with the help of a government-advisory group set up by mostly physicists working on nuclear energy.

    Seems that there are a lot of influential people who see themselves as having good intentions, but none who see that harassing those who can’t help to think for themselves and be honest is the real wasting of resources of our descendents.

    50

    • #

      ??.. what point are you trying to get across here , ..RB ?
      Nuclear is or is not a solution to a problem that does not exist in the first place ?
      Ignoring the CO2 debate, Nuclear is a proven , safe , stable , reliable , source of energy.
      We just need to develop easier and cheaper ways of utilising it.

      21

    • #

      Is the identity of the chemist a secret?

      04

  • #
    rob dinn

    the cororate dictatorship will rob you whatever product you come up with
    where vax mandate comes from https://balance10.blogspot.com/2021/10/where-vax-mandate-comes-from.html

    20

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    So according to the poll quoted here – 20% support nuclear, and 30% somewhat support, giving the 50% figure

    However, most of that support in in the older demographics, the young hate it.

    Therefore, the conclusion is that as the boomers pass into history, so will nuclear power.

    035

    • #

      Seems the hate s.th. they don’t know and have no clue about.

      150

    • #
      el+gordo

      Nuclear power plants are so expensive and take so long to construct, that it shouldn’t be considered unless they find definitive proof that CO2 causes global warming.

      88

      • #
        Hanrahan

        Yes, BUT! Had we gone the nuclear route instead of, not as well as, ruinables we’d be hone ‘n hosed by now.

        170

        • #
          el+gordo

          Its hardly the point, coal is still the most efficient and least expensive energy source. The high price for coal at the moment has come about through dislocations produced by the pandemic but it’ll settle down eventually.

          Fundamentally, to go nuclear is a clear indication that Australia accepts the hypothesis that CO2 is evil. Raising the white flag on climate change is not my MO.

          140

          • #
            Graeme#4

            While I see nothing wrong in promoting modern, clean HELE power stations, surely closed-cycle gas should get a mention, particularly where there are plentiful supplies of cheap gas?

            40

            • #
              el+gordo

              ‘ … surely closed-cycle gas should get a mention …’

              Yes, after a quick read it looks promising, definitely should be part of the mix.

              00

        • #
          David Maddison

          Hanrahan, if the world had gone fully nuclear and there were no “carbon (sic) emissions” then the Left would have continued their war against nuclear power.

          Ironically, it’s because the Left hated nuclear power that we ended up with a high dependence on fossil fuels.

          If we all fully went for the wind and solar option the Left would complain about that too.

          They are fundamentally opposed to cheap energy, mass production and all the good things that Western Civilisation brings us.

          They would rather us freeze in the dark, except for the Elites.

          170

        • #
          Serp

          The sharks profiteering from the nuclear industry are orders of magnitude more wicked than those in the renewables pond.

          Check out the status of the projects currently on foot in the UK and tell me we could expect a completion date within thirty years of commencement and then there is the lifetime which is about half that of a coal fired generating station followed by the decommissioning process. You’re looking at maybe thirty years operation within a full century of build, use, dismantle.

          Nuclear is for mugs particularly while we have all that coal below our feet.

          11

      • #

        el+gordo
        October 13, 2021 at 6:17 am · Reply
        Nuclear power plants are so expensive and take so long to construct, ……

        As compared to what ?
        Like many in this debate .ther seems to be a very obvious lack of homework being done .
        Try comparing like for like continuous outputs over the life span of the system…
        Using current/ future technologies , rather than 1960’ tech.

        70

      • #
        Graeme#4

        EG, please don’t fall into the trap of quoting outliers such as Hinkley C as examples of modern nuclear projects. Barakah Units 1 and 2 were brought into operation on time, on budget, in 8 years each. The entire 4-unit site will cost around A$27bn. If the figure of A$7bn for subsidies every year is correct, then Australia could have used the renewables subsidies for four years to build an equivalent 5.6GW nuclear power station.

        80

      • #
        Roger+Knights

        “… it shouldn’t be considered unless they find definitive proof that CO2 causes global warming.”

        It should be considered, because it’s the lesser of two evils.

        00

    • #

      Peter Fitzroy
      October 13, 2021 at 6:06 am · Reply
      So according to the poll quoted here – 20% support nuclear, and 30% somewhat support, giving the 50% figure

      However, most of that support in in the older demographics, the young hate it.

      Its a natural thing for “the young” to disagree/ rebel against establishment and traditional thinking.
      Fortunately, it is also a natural thing for “the young” to grow up and become somewhat better informed and experienced. …As a result , their thinking changes into more realistic conclusions.
      Would you be happy with a authorities consisting solely of “the young” to make those life defining decisions for you ?

      120

      • #
        Peter+Fitzroy

        You do have a point the young become more conservative as they age, but only a few.
        But don’t forget the young vote, and as the demographic that contains the boomers is a large one, but it is shrinking, this means that the old cohort will not have the sway that it has now

        09

        • #
          clarence.t

          Conservatism comes with being able to follow scientific facts and data in a rational manner.

          Unfortunately education system does not push rational thought and scientific understanding as much as they used to…

          .. so we get a load of virtue-seeking sheep instead.. just ready for propaganda manipulation.

          20

    • #
      farmerbraun

      “Therefore, the conclusion is that as the boomers pass into history, so will nuclear power”

      False. The young will grow up. Being no longer young, they may embrace nuclear power should there be a necessity.

      100

    • #
      Forrest Gardener

      You are out of your league PF. Simon already has 70 down votes. Even if you become a better troll you won’t match that.

      50

  • #
    TdeF

    Bob Carr wrote a hit piece on Nuclear Power last week. Perhaps he should have disclosed his new job at Sydney University of Technology which covers Engineering and Climate Change. His argument was that big nuclear plants were too expensive, Australians were lousy at building anything and no one has ever bought one of these miniature reactors. So after his five years as the expert on China Australian relations, he is in another useless job.

    As for small nuclear, there is a lot of it. Nuclear submarines like the ones we are buying anyway, nuclear ice breakers and more. And there are about 20 competing designs for small nuclear, half of them ready to go. But there are two catches. Firstly they have to be bought in volume, in the tens, not just one. Secondly they need highly enriched uranium, about 20%, which is hard to get as it is heading to weapons grade and not freely available or made in Australia or most countries.

    What has changed really is that by endless repetition the word ’emissions’ means ONLY CO2. The pushers of nuclear energy even boast the nuclear power is ’emission free’. It has been 35 years since Chernobyl and Fukishima was a tsunami after all. No one under 40 remembers Chernobyl. Adam Bandt’s bleat about our nuclear submarines being ’12 Chernobyls’ falls on deaf ears.

    It’s quite funny how the Greens who know no science have so distorted the language that the essential gas for all life on earth is now a (toxic) emission and nuclear power is completely safe and emission free.

    350

    • #
      Klem

      Keep small nuke plants out of my backyard. I didn’t pay my home mortgage for 25 years only to have some empty headed whacko wipe it out.

      [wee edit. 18c stuff – LVA]

      19

      • #
        David

        In some countries – Finland comes to mind- the local populations actually agitate for nuclear power stations in their community, because it means development, technology and long lived high paying jobs.
        Go to France. The NP stations are everywhere in wine growing rural and semi urban communities. The most polar tourist destination on earth, France, has not had a negative impact from NP, only cheaper, reliable electricity.

        140

    • #
      yarpos

      Bob Carr just wants to do to Australia what he did to NSW, hold it back 20 years. What a negative force in public life that man has been.

      130

    • #

      What is Bob Carr’s conflict? The uni has nuclear physicists at ANSTO. Big deal.

      08

    • #
      Serp

      He’s a nimble footed piece being able so quickly to put distance between himself and an on the nose PRC a feat not unexpected given his being one of very few NSW premiers who has resigned free from disgrace.

      10

  • #
    Erasmus

    Nothing illustrates the idiocy of the green left better than Adam Bandt’s statement that the new subs would be “floating Chernobyls”. They want to cancel civilisation as we have known it for the post WW2 period, and instead the world needs to marginalise them and their damaging agitprop.

    220

    • #
      PeterS

      If they were “floating Chernobyls” then how come the the major powers use them so much as part of their overall strategy to maintain a strong defence of their respective nations? Wouldn’t it be like an “own goal” if they were so dangerous? Of course the truth is Adam Bandt and many like him are just twits, and as such only twits would vote for such people, and sadly there are many who would.

      260

    • #
      yarpos

      Just Bandt checking another box on his hyperbolic idiot club membership card.

      120

  • #
    PeterS

    It was bound to happen sooner or later. The alarmists (such as the leftists, ABC, etc.) and their supporters, silent or otherwise (such as PM Morrison) have been caught with their pants down. I did warn some time ago that we might be surprised by an announcement from PM Morrison that we are going to allow nuclear power stations to be built here. I still expect it if he is to be honest and above board with the whole emission reduction mantra. Otherwise, he will be proven beyond any doubt to be deceptive and evil to the core. So, PM Morrison, we are waiting. When are you going to pull your finger out and drop the ban on nuclear power? In fact you should go further and introduce financial incentives to encourage them for the exact same reasons why renewables are encouraged, even though the reasons are fake. If you and your supporters of the emission reduction agenda are not to be consistent, then please do us all a favour and resign. Your hypercritical BS has gone on for far too long.

    210

    • #
      BriantheEngineer

      More important to sort out strategic defense first than to conflate the two issues

      20

    • #
      Serp

      The lead time is prohibitive and first an election needs to be won with sufficient senate numbers to repeal the anti-nuclear legislation; I doubt it’ll happen in our lifetimes PeterS.

      00

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    Hilarious,

    Not even past ten comments and the koala karer is promoting intergenerational hate, envy and victimhood as “discussion”.

    How very modern; Prince Charles would be so proud that his work was bearing fruit.

    130

    • #
      yarpos

      when you are a one trick pony those are pretty much the constraints you work under

      no damage done, its not like anyone takes it seriously

      70

  • #
    Dave in the States

    There are two things going on pertaining to public perceptions.

    First people are finally beginning to realize that wind and solar can’t do the job.

    Secondly, and unfortunately, people are still not critically questioning the fallacy that co2 emissions are something we need to worry about.

    220

  • #
    PeterS

    We all know the arguments that here in Australia coal is cheaper than nuclear for power generation. One begs the question though if it’s all about cost then how come renewables, which is by far the most expensive form of power generation then why isn’t nuclear allowed anyway given it’s actually more reliable and cheaper than renewables? Of course the answer is it has nothing to do with cost or the real science. It’s all about the BS agenda to reduce the West to a third world status while allowing other nations like China and India to continue to develop and eventually even surpass the West in every respect imaginable. In other words, it’s a form of local terrorism, which under other circumstances would be met with life in prison. Now, I don’t expect people like PM Morrison to be put in prison for life for the stupid energy policies he keeps sprouting, but I do expect him to be honest and above board about the whole emission reduction mantra. Either he believes in it and acts in the only way possible to achieve it by allowing nuclear power here, or he drops the pretence and goes back to promoting coal like he used to when in opposition. Any other approach will only increase the risk of wrecking our economy so baldy he will very likely end up being the most hated PM of all time. I prefer he avoid that outcome, not so much for his sake because I just don’t give a damn about him any more given his display of evil, but for the sake of the rest of us.

    110

    • #
      yarpos

      Simple really, they torture some numbers and ignore other numbers enough to pretend that wind and solar are cheap and try to diffuse that side of the story while going Look Squirrel! we are “saving the planet” all the way to the bank.

      50

      • #
        Graeme#4

        And they rarely make honest comparisons over the full lifetimes of each power generation methodology. For example, LCOE comparisons are often made over 30 years, so they don’t include renewables replacements, nor do they include the full lifetimes of coal and nuclear plants.

        20

    • #

      Peter S
      I might suggest you consider seeking some theropy to help you with that pent up hatred you keep spruking.
      Any normal soul knows that you cannot think logically or communicate rationally when blinded by the red mist of hatred.
      And be careful who you brush off as appearing stupid or evil, Morrison may not be openly sceptical about CO2 etc, but he knows what got him elected and i suspect he want to repeat that success next election.
      He is a politician, …do not take anything he says as gospel.

      42

      • #
        farmerbraun

        You are on fairly safe ground believing that the politicians’ objective is first and foremost to be re-elected.
        The same has been said of the current leader of the opposition in NZ , trying desperately to get back into power by seeming to support whatever the people favour from time to time.
        Against that of course is the fact that once in power, they invariably do not reverse or repeal the legislation that they railed so vociferously against while in opposition.
        “keeping the .. .tards honest ” appears to be mission impossible.

        30

      • #
        PeterS

        I don’t hate the man. I hate evil. Don’t you? Or are you on the side of evil?

        10

  • #
    el+gordo

    ‘ … in a blink 50% support nuclear power and only 30% oppose it.’

    I’m with the 30% and need convincing that nuclear power is in Australia’s best interest.

    210

    • #
      PeterS

      Get with the program. Although Australia’s interest would be best served by promoting coal fired power, that is not going to happen. In case you still have your head stuck in the sand, the show has moved on a long time ago. Emissions reduction is the game in play and will remain so for a very long time to come. So, the only recourse is nuclear; in the best overall interests of Australia. Now if you have a problem with that then you don’t really have Australia’s best interest in mind but the exact opposite, just like the greenies.

      100

      • #
        el+gordo

        There isn’t a need for nuclear power stations in Australia, don’t be cowered by snake oil salesmen. Its all about climate change, is AGW a farce?

        On this issue I’ll happily side with the Greens.

        010

        • #
          yarpos

          The perfect getting in the way of the good.

          40

        • #
        • #
          PeterS

          Still missing the point. Yes, there is no need for nuclear but for the fact that our decision makers are very strong on reducing emissions. The only way to achieve that without destroying our economy is to go nuclear. You certainly sound like a Green. It figures. You hate the West that much? Sure, it’s far from perfect but it’s the best we got so far, warts and all – at least until it is done away with as per the Green’s agenda. Then you can be happy with the socialist agenda in full.

          00

        • #
          RickWill

          There isn’t a need for nuclear power stations in Australia,

          But time is running out. Australia has spent AUD40bn over the past two decades to wean itself off 0.6% of its fossil fuel production. And Australia has done better than most countries. At that rate of expenditure, it will take 3,300 years and AUD6.6tr to replace its fossil fuel production with random energy generation and double that expenditure to get the storage.

          China’s current coal reserves are 30 years. No doubt they will find more but a century will probably see it out. Then there is oil and gas. Both are getting harder to find and extract. Probably a century as well with luck.

          Australia might be able to triple the expenditure to shorten the time-frame to 1000years but I think the globe will be in deep poo from fossil fuel shortage before then.

          Everything that is done now to extend the time horizon for the depletion of fossil fuels is a good thing. The only things that comes close to matching them right now is nuclear fission and managed forests. The productivity of the latter benefit from more atmospheric CO2.

          The world going nuclear instead of being full bore on random energy is still good for the Australian economy but will actually achieve something rather than make-believe.

          10

    • #
      Philip

      I agree. When we have so much coal, right near the furnace, nuclear is not needed at all. When the coal runs out, sure, it will be necessary (at this stage).

      70

      • #
        PeterS

        Another one out of touch with reality and instead in a dream state. Yes, we can do without nuclear but for the fact our decision makers are going down the emission elimination path, whether we like it or not. In that case the nuclear option is essential. Sooner or later they will have to admit that or else give up the pretence that emission reduction is the way to go and revert back to coal. My guess is they will never go back to coal and instead adopt nuclear sooner or later, if for anything just to save face. Some nations already have and will continue to do so. The longer we as a not so insignificant nation remain non-nuclear the worse it will become on the world stage as more criticisms are thrown at us for not getting rid of coal. For us to get rid of coal we MUST go nuclear. If we don’t go nuclear we MUST continue to use coal and more of it not less. The latter option is not viable on the world stage. Now, of course we could thumb our noses to the rest of the world and focus on coal but that’s not happening and won’t for a very long time if at all. SO, stop dreaming and come back to reality, with all due respect.

        10

    • #
      Graeme#4

      I believe the next five years may change your mind, when SMRs and perhaps thorium reactors are up and running.

      00

  • #
    PeterS

    Yet we still have people believing these deceptive lies below. It goes to show there are lots of stupid people around. China might be reducing the numbers of coal fired power stations they are building abroad but it’s not because of some crap about man-made climate change. It’s because they are desperate to build more coal fired and nuclear power stations in their own country to meet their growing thirst for more electricity. China is liberalising coal-fired power pricing to tackle their energy crisis. See second link below.

    Environmentalists hail China’s vow to stop building coal-fired power plants abroad

    China liberalises coal-fired power pricing to tackle energy crisis

    50

  • #
    Lance

    The appropriate generation mix depends on a lot of things: Min to Max Baseload. Min to Max peaking. Required ramp rates. Cost of hydro/battery storage, fuel cost, capacity factors, dispatchability, etc.

    To say that any one technology is “The Best” isn’t accurate. It is more accurate to say, “It depends”.

    Coal, Natural Gas CCGT, or Nuclear baseload make sense. Design life of 30 to 50 years or more.

    OCGT If you can afford the fuel, Hydro Peaking (If you have the reservoir storage) make sense.

    Non-dispatchable sola/wind don’t make sense. To make them dispatchable, you need a lot of expensive storage and expensive inverters with high ramp rate capability. Design life of 15 to 25 years.

    Nuclear excels at Baseload Generation. Capacity factors of 90% or more. Ramping rate of ~ 5% capacity /minute or more.

    Coal plants work very well at Baseload. Capacity factors of 55% or better. Ramping rate of 20 to 30 MW/minute.

    OCGT are best suited to peaking power. Ramping rate of 20 to 50 MW/Minute.

    CCGT are suitable for baseload. Capacity factors of 50% to 80%, ramping rates of 40 MW/minute or so.

    Pumped Hydro: Peaking power. Ramp rate of > 100 MW/Minute possible.

    Solar: Capacity Factor of ~ 20% . Ramp rate depends on available storage and inverter capabilities.

    Wind: Capacity Factor of ~ 30% . Ramp rate depends on available storage and inverter capabilities.

    The generation mix that is most economical, most reliable, most dispatchable, most frequency and voltage stable, depends on many things. Ignore the governing parameters at your peril.

    170

    • #
      PeterS

      The conclusion, as most of us already know, is that what makes sense, for better or for worse, is to promote nuclear and coal for the best interests of Australia, or to promote renewables for the worst interests. It’s that simple.

      120

    • #
      Old Goat

      Lance,
      At last something that looks like “A Plan”. We are ignoring the fact that sometime in the near future that fossil fuels are going to get depleted due to world wide use . This will drive up prices and make nuclear more viable. As the saying goes “failure to plan is planning to fail” . Our civilisation requires large quantities of energy to maintain our standard of living and it has to be flexible and portable and thats the beauty of fossil fuels. As they become depleted we need something reliable to replace them in the energy mix and that is where we should be looking in the long term.

      30

    • #

      Lance explains this so well, and can you see how something perceived as just electricity flowing from the proverbial ‘hole in the wall’ is just so complex, difficult to explain, and even when explained,would still result in blank looks.

      Perhaps the most ignored ‘thing’ in all of this is the simple Load Curves for power generation/consumption, and again, unless you actually know what you are looking at, then it seems meaningless, perhaps why they are so roundly ignored in their totality.

      However, what the Load Curve does do is to explain the text that Lance wrote above.

      So, here’s an exercise for you all, and it’s simple to follow, and this link to the Load Curve is just for yesterday, 12Oct2021, so it’s recent.

      This is the link to the Load Curve for power generation for yesterday, and on the ‘legend’ below the image itself, you see the ticked boxes for each power source.

      First thing – Tick the box indicating ‘Total’ and you’ll see the black line appear at the top of the graph. That is total power generation from every source, and this is also the total for power consumption across the day on an hour by hour basis to give that Load Curve for the whole day.

      Now, UNTICK the boxes for rooftop solar (yellow) and solar. (power plants) (red)

      Now you see the major power plants delivering power to the grid.

      See how Black Coal, the lowest black(ish) colour ramps up and down across the day, to basically follow the actual Load, now the upper line of ALL colours. The Brown Coal, (the next colour up) is basically a straight line for generation, as Victoria is now strapped for power. so what can be delivered from those ten Units is delivered basically at ‘full whack’ across the whole day.

      Note how all other colours either come on line, or ramp up at both peaks, the early AM (smaller) Peak, and the larger major Evening Peak for power consumption, around 6.45PM every evening. (incidentally as both versions of solar are back at zero)

      Now, UNTICK the wind box, and also the water box as well. (most of that water is Hydro for Tasmania) and also note how water ramps up for the same evening Peak, this time for the Peak in Tasmania.

      See now how fossil fuels are the major supplier, and follow the Load itself, that upper black line.

      Okay, last little exercise here.

      Leaving that Total, upper black line showing, UNTICK all the boxes. (so blank graph except for the black line)

      Now tick just wind, rooftop solar, and solar. See just how little those three renewables of choice actually deliver, across the whole day, peaking as solar does around Midday.

      Now, hover your mouse on the graph at 6.45PM, (18:45) the evening Peak. See the black line total (at left) and that’s 25.3GW. (25,300MW) and now see the total (also at left) for those three renewables, only wind now, (as both solars have long since stopped) and that total is just 2.9GW. (2,900MW)

      Look again at the graph. All that white area you now see is fossil fuels, and a little hydro.

      That is what fossil fuels deliver, and without that, then there is nothing because that black line is an ABSOLUTE. Without ALL of that power being delivered, there is ….. NO POWER AT ALL.

      Tony.

      90

      • #
        Lance

        So if you ain’t got 25 GW of Coal or other disptachable Baseload, you got nothing, because the grid has collapsed.

        It doesn’t matter what LCOE happens to be, if the sun ain’t shining or the wind ain’t blowing. You got no power. Blackout.

        (forgive my language. just keeping things simple.)

        50

        • #

          Just as Lance wrote:

          You got no power. Blackout.

          And therein lies the problem.

          You NEED (absolutely in fact) that amount of constant, reliable, always there, power, and as he also mentions, around 25,000MW of it.

          Other than four power plants in Queensland (those four plants totalling at just 2900MW) all the other 43 Units at 12 power plants (totalling 21,000MW) are all older than 35 years, and four levels of technology lower than the most recent tech coal fired plants.

          They need to replaced, and soon, as the lead up to actual power delivery is seven to ten years, and that’s the same for all power plants of any type.

          That replacement ‘discussion’ needs to had ….. now, or as soon as is possible.

          Be it Nuclear, CCGT, or new tech coal fired power, (the only plants big enough to deliver that absolutely required power) then it needs to be ‘in train’ soon.

          Or, just as Lance writes ….. No power. Blackout.

          Nothing else, nothing else cuts it.

          Tony.

          80

  • #
    Phillip+Charles+Sweeney

    Fun Fact

    Although the concentration of uranium is quite low, about 3.3 ppb (parts per billion) in seawater of average oceanic salinity, the amount present in the total volume of the oceans is very great, some 4.5 billion tonnes.

    Scientists have long known that uranium dissolved in seawater combines chemically with oxygen to form uranyl ions with a positive charge. Extracting these uranyl ions involves dipping plastic fibers containing a compound called amidoxime into seawater. The uranyl ions essentially stick to the amidoxime.

    The uranium would be replaced by natural rock erosion at the rate mankind would need to extract for global energy needs – so essential an endless supply of energy

    120

    • #
      David

      Agree, but the cost of extraction is over $200/lb. There are however plentiful resources in discovered and undiscovered uranium deposits that will also ensure an almost inexhaustible supply of nuclear fuel.

      70

  • #
    Robber

    Build anything in Australia these days other than houses?
    Look how long it was going to take to build some diesel French submarines – how long til we build a UK/US nuclear version?
    To go nuclear in Australia will take at least 10 years of investigations, then 10 years of environmental appeals, then 10 years of design and construction.
    First plant commissioned by 2050?
    Don’t destroy those coal generators.

    170

    • #
      yarpos

      Second Sydney Airport is a glowing example of the go ahead nature of infrastructure development in Australia

      80

  • #
    • #
      Hanrahan

      I hate people applying world stats to Australia, we are NOT “the world”.

      I just checked and someone said 60% of Australians live “on the coast” [undefined]. That means that their air is cleaned by sea breezes so any lung issues would have another trigger. 90% of those living away from the coast [guess] would not have a coal fired power station in their region so they are not breathing soot from coal either.

      Besides all our power stations have scrubbers in the stacks.

      Australia prolly has the highest WH&S standards in the world so few men die mining coal.

      There are prolly more Tasmanians breathing dirty air from wood fires than North Islanders (sic) breathing dirty air from coal with the possible exception of the Hunter Valley.

      60

  • #
    Wirebird

    Maybe its better if the topic of nuclear power is not discussed. We have seen how other topics have been divided according to political tribal allegiances rather than logic or even common sense. For example, deciding whether a covid treatment is worthwhile or not simply because Trump suggested it might be. Or that masks don’t work because the Right has decided, as a bloc, that covid is no worse than the flu.
    Nuclear power generation is far safer than it used to be, mainly because melt-downs can no longer happen – and because the latest kinds can ‘eat’ their own waste. Once people know that, they change their minds about nuclear. So the last thing we need is discussion and BS arguments!

    60

    • #

      You forgot to mention, as many do, that Trump talked in one sentence about two possible gamechangers, HCQ and Remdsevir.
      My understanding was and is, that the anti HCQ campaign was lead directly by Gilead and to Gilead related persons, researchers and politicians.

      81

    • #

      Wirebird
      October 13, 2021 at 7:28 am ·
      Nuclear power generation is far safer than it used to be, mainly because melt-downs can no longer happen

      Nuclear already has the best “safety” record of all power generation.!
      As measured by human deaths per GWh produced.

      30

      • #
        Wirebird

        Nuclear does actually have a good safety record – but things that don’t happen don’t tend to make headlines.

        20

    • #
      Graeme#4

      Nuclear power is currently very much under discussion in Australia. Look at the recent articles and all the comments in The Australian.

      10

      • #
        Wirebird

        I still think nuclear shouldn’t be turned into a BS political issue; just let people know the facts.
        Looked at today’s The Australian items re Morrison’s netZero teaser. Lots of comments, mostly horror, but very few mention nuclear. When they do, they say it’s practical, clean, reliable, sustainable, economical, and Australia has plenty uranium. All true, but the thing they don’t seem to talk enough about is the safety of new nuclear. I think that safety would be the deciding factor for most people. The new reactors will be small, can’t melt down, and ‘eat’ their own waste. What’s not to like?

        40

  • #
    Alistair Crooks

    It seems absolutely reasonable that South Australia should take the plunge and start a nuclear power program – Firstly, it has no coal to speak of and has to rely on interconnectors. and secondly, it wants a nuclear submarine industry and needs a nuclear power industry to do training.

    70

  • #
    Antoine D'Arche

    I don’t care whether they use nuclear power or:, as long as they dump solar and wind.

    110

    • #
      Antoine D'Arche

      “nuclear power or coal”. Stupid voice recognition software!

      30

    • #
      yarpos

      They dump their wind and solar across interconnectors

      20

      • #

        yarpos
        October 13, 2021 at 8:24 am · Reply
        They dump their wind and solar across interconnectors

        Not all of it…..!
        At times they have such an excess of wind generation ( 1+ GW !) they have no option other than to “Curtail” it……..IE ,..shut down wind farms .
        Then again, often within a few hours, they will have to import power from Vic to cover the evening peaks or simply the drop in wind.
        ..And all the time the Gas generators have to be kept running at low , inefficient, expensive, levels,..just incase the wind/sun quits unexpectedly ..!
        Technically, this is known as a. “Pi55 useless” system !

        60

  • #
    Ross

    I’m having dejavu. This nuclear industry option discussion has been raging for decades!!. Everytime the subject is raised the end conclusion is usually this for Australia. We have around 500 years of readily available coal in the ground and oodles of gas. The lead time and technology required for nuclear power generation in this too country is too substantial. Hence, just stick with coal and gas. Ziggy Switkowski did an investigation of the viability of a domestic nuclear power industry for Australia back in the mid 2000’s. He’s a bloke that knows his stuff. Business executive and a nuclear physicist. End conclusion was, yes we should be nurturing a domestic nuclear industry but it’s not high priority.

    120

    • #
    • #

      Ross
      October 13, 2021 at 8:01 am · ……. Ziggy Switkowski did an investigation of the viability of a domestic nuclear power industry for Australia back in the mid 2000’s. He’s a bloke that knows his stuff. Business executive and a nuclear physicist. End conclusion was, yes we should be nurturing a domestic nuclear industry but it’s not high priority.

      Back in the mid 2000s, we had a very different power generation plan, with much more coal .
      But now the “Business plan” options have shifted away from coal, so the priorities would be very different also.

      30

      • #
        • #
          OldOzzie

          those ideas evolved into a design called arc, for “affordable, robust, and compact.”

          The next year, something happened that Whyte credits with restoring his interest in fusion. “I had passed my colleague Leslie in the hall, and he was holding a bundle of what looked like the spoolings of a cassette tape,” he said. It was a relatively new material: ribbons of high-temperature superconductor. Superconductors are materials that offer little to no resistance to the flow of electricity; for this reason, they make ideally efficient electromagnets, and magnets are the key component in tokamaks. A high-temperature superconductor—well, it opened up new possibilities, in the way that the vulcanization of rubber opened up possibilities in the mid-nineteenth century. The superconductor material that Whyte’s colleague was holding could in theory make a much more effective magnet than had ever existed, resulting in a significantly smaller and cheaper fusion device. “Every time you double a magnetic field, the volume of the plasma required to produce the same amount of power goes down by a factor of sixteen,” Whyte explained. Fusion happens when a contained plasma is heated to more than a hundred million degrees. Whyte asked his class to use this new material to design a compact fusion power plant of at least five hundred megawatts, enough to power a small city: “I was not sure what we would find with H.T.S., but I knew it would be innovative.”

          The physicists Bob Mumgaard, Dan Brunner, and Zach Hartwig were in that class. The power plant that they came up with was in most respects familiar. At its center would be a doughnut-shaped tokamak, not unlike the type that Whyte had worked with as a graduate student. They named their design Vulcan. In the next iteration of the class, those ideas evolved into a design called arc, for “affordable, robust, and compact.” (This also happens to be the name of the personal fusion device of the billionaire industrialist Tony Stark, in the “Iron Man” movies.) arc would use an ordinary salt to translate its heat onto an electrical grid. It would be modular, for easy maintenance. It would not be able to recycle its own fuel. It was a “good enough” machine.

          But the use of H.T.S. magnets made it about the size of a conventional power plant—a tenth the size of iter.

          Physicists from both classes later formed a group that modified the arc design. The new model was two-thirds the size and intended to be ready as soon as possible—sparc. sparc would be the prototype that demonstrated the concept; arc would be a long-lasting power plant capable of delivering affordable energy to the grid.

          The next year, something happened that Whyte credits with restoring his interest in fusion. “I had passed my colleague Leslie in the hall, and he was holding a bundle of what looked like the spoolings of a cassette tape,” he said. It was a relatively new material: ribbons of high-temperature superconductor. Superconductors are materials that offer little to no resistance to the flow of electricity; for this reason, they make ideally efficient electromagnets, and magnets are the key component in tokamaks. A high-temperature superconductor—well, it opened up new possibilities, in the way that the vulcanization of rubber opened up possibilities in the mid-nineteenth century. The superconductor material that Whyte’s colleague was holding could in theory make a much more effective magnet than had ever existed, resulting in a significantly smaller and cheaper fusion device. “Every time you double a magnetic field, the volume of the plasma required to produce the same amount of power goes down by a factor of sixteen,” Whyte explained. Fusion happens when a contained plasma is heated to more than a hundred million degrees. Whyte asked his class to use this new material to design a compact fusion power plant of at least five hundred megawatts, enough to power a small city: “I was not sure what we would find with H.T.S., but I knew it would be innovative.”

          The physicists Bob Mumgaard, Dan Brunner, and Zach Hartwig were in that class. The power plant that they came up with was in most respects familiar. At its center would be a doughnut-shaped tokamak, not unlike the type that Whyte had worked with as a graduate student. They named their design Vulcan. In the next iteration of the class, those ideas evolved into a design called arc, for “affordable, robust, and compact.” (This also happens to be the name of the personal fusion device of the billionaire industrialist Tony Stark, in the “Iron Man” movies.) arc would use an ordinary salt to translate its heat onto an electrical grid. It would be modular, for easy maintenance. It would not be able to recycle its own fuel. It was a “good enough” machine. But the use of H.T.S. magnets made it about the size of a conventional power plant—a tenth the size of iter.

          Physicists from both classes later formed a group that modified the arc design. The new model was two-thirds the size and intended to be ready as soon as possible—sparc. sparc would be the prototype that demonstrated the concept; arc would be a long-lasting power plant capable of delivering affordable energy to the grid.

          There were real reasons for skepticism. H.T.S. is fragile—it remained to be seen if it could even be made into a hardy magnet, and, if it could, how well that magnet would endure bombardment by charged particles. Plus, H.T.S. was not yet commercially available at sufficient scale and performance. “But those were engineering barriers, not scientific barriers,” Whyte said. “That class really changed my mind about where we were in fusion.”

          Dennis Whyte gave a presentation on arc. He estimated that it could demonstrate net fusion energy in 2025 and bring fusion to the electric grid by 2030, with individual plants producing a gigawatt of power each—about what a conventional power plant provides today. demo would cost an initial thirty billion dollars; arc would be a million-dollar machine. “It was very dramatic,” Mumgaard said. “The difference was so stark. The room was split.” Roughly speaking, the younger people were buzzing with hope; the older people had perhaps been hopeful one too many times.

          The doubters weren’t simply killjoys—they were imaginative thinkers who had devoted decades of their lives to fusion research. It wouldn’t be easy to make H.T.S. into a magnet of sufficient size. And the powerful magnetic field created by H.T.S. was sure to have consequences, which hadn’t been fully studied. There was every reason in the history of experimental science to expect surprises. And funding for fusion projects was already tight; another idea might draw money away from projects that many scientists considered more promising. It was entirely reasonable to ask whether the members of the M.I.T. team were the Wright brothers or Samuel Pierpont Langley—the head of the Smithsonian who in 1903 crashed his very expensive Aerodrome into the Potomac, and then a couple of years later did it again.

          After Whyte’s keynote, the M.I.T. crowd went out for lunch at Stubb’s Bar-B-Q. “It’s the kind of place with red-checked tablecloths and food that comes with a lot of napkins,” Whyte said. Everyone around the table knew that the primary funding for their work would end within a year. As Mumgaard recalls, “Basically, we all had pink slips, and yet we were still there. And the question was, Why? We had to learn to listen to ourselves. Did we really believe the field was where we were saying we thought it was?” Was H.T.S. really the shiny new lever that would move fusion dramatically forward? Whyte and his colleagues started to write on a napkin details of how they could make sparc and then arc a reality. They wrote down estimates of how much money it would cost to develop it. “It was like this collective dawning, that this thing was really possible,” he told me. Over ribs, they decided that they would fund their work with lottery tickets or with venture capital or with philanthropy—one way or another, they would make their good-enough fusion power plant real.

          The M.I.T. team continued to dedicate its time to arc/sparc, quilting together fellowships and grants. At one point, to make payroll, technicians went into the basement and loaded trucks with scrap copper to sell. sparc Underground was set up—a group of interested scientists who met regularly, to discuss plans and work through difficulties. They needed to buy as much H.T.S. as they could, in order to learn more about the material’s characteristics—hammer it, heat it, freeze it, send current through it. “I remember so well the first shipment of H.T.S.,” Mumgaard said. “We waited for months to get this reel of material. It was only five hundred metres. Now, if we’re not talking ten kilometres, we’re not talking anything. These days, you can order this stuff on Alibaba.com. But then—it was such a moment.”

          The team had to solve engineering problems—it also had to solve business problems, including convincing suppliers that there was a market for the material, so that more would be made. “We met with them and asked them if they had considered fusion as a market,” Mumgaard told me. “They were, like, ‘No way, that’s not a real thing.’ ” After two years of extensive lab work and dreamy conversations over five-dollar pitchers of Miller High Life at the Muddy Charles Pub, sparc Underground became Commonwealth Fusion Systems, a seven-person private fusion-energy company with an ongoing relationship with M.I.T. (C.F.S. funds research at M.I.T., which shares its intellectual resources and some lab space with C.F.S.; patents are filed jointly.) Some of C.F.S.’s funders are European energy companies, and some are philanthropists. By 2021, the company employed more than a hundred and fifty people, many of them veterans of SpaceX and Tesla.

          The one exception is the H.T.S. magnet—the most exciting element of the research, and the one that raises the most doubt within the scientific community. “I just wonder about the material stresses of such a powerful magnetic field,” one scientist said to me. “H.T.S. magnets will definitely be used in future tokamaks, no doubt, but I suspect they’ll be used with a weaker magnetic field.”

          “Most of the criticism we hear is not about the science but about the timeline,” Mumgaard said. The magnets inside iter took thirty years to develop. “It took us three years.” He could barely repress a grin; it was the one moment of boyish bullishness and ego that I saw in him.

          sparc will have eighteen H.T.S. magnets; each will be composed of sixteen “pancakes”—eight-foot-tall stackable D-shaped slices. I met a pancake in the West Cell, an enormous open laboratory space at M.I.T. which resembles an airplane hangar. What with all the pancakes and doughnuts being tested there, the West Cell has come to be called the West Cell Diner. The pancakes were given names in alphabetical order. The first production pancake was named Egg. When I was there, I saw Strawberry. “We originally planned to have a pancake breakfast for the team when we finished,” Whyte said. “covid is making that look less likely.”

          Strawberry was, incidentally, beautiful. It comprised coils of steel, copper, H.T.S., and helium coolant, because even a high-temperature superconductor has to be kept very cold. (In its internal structure, the magnet was more croissant than pancake.) “I remember when the first pancake was done, and we were moving it so delicately,” Whyte said. “Our hearts were in our mouths—it was, like, Holy cow. Then, the other week, it was the fifteenth pancake. We rolled it over, connected it, like we’d done it a thousand times.”

          10

    • #
      BriantheEngineer

      Might be a high priority if the current explosion of price for energy gets locked in.

      10

  • #
    Neville

    Again, there’s the real planet Earth and unfortunately there’s their fantasy planet and their fantasies are winning by a long way.
    Again there has never been an easier time to be alive, just check the data or evidence.
    From human existence (200+ K years) to 1800 life expectancy was under 40 and life was very hard.
    Then the UK started the IND REV and everything has completely changed in just 200 years.
    So far all due to the use of fossil fuels and still today FFs generate 80%+ of TOTAL world energy.
    In 1970 human population was 3.7 bn and today has increased to 7.8 bn , in just 50 years.
    Yet we’re supposed to be living in a climate emergency or EXISTENTIAL threat? Plus today we have a greening planet and humans have a much higher life expectancy and wealth.
    Of course their claims are just infantile nonsense and yet people still want to believe their fairy stories.
    Now to the Glasgow clown show where speaker after speaker will yap more stupid nonsense and receive generous applause from the true believers.
    Yet China + developing countries will continue to build 100s of Coal power stns and laugh all the way to their banks.
    I’ll wait for Lomborg and others to provide the REAL accurate detail after the Glasgow clown show has finished and the ongoing waste of endless TRILLIONs $ follows with ZIP return by 2050 or 2100 and beyond.

    110

  • #
    Ronin

    I’m just watching the hype ramping up on the lead in to COP 26, predictable, Prince Jugears has been on the soapbox again.

    70

    • #
      Serp

      Yes, free of his father’s restraining hand he’s beginning to pipe up in a fashion his mother must deplore; surely he’ll predecease her and spare us the most interventionist british monarch since the beheaded one with whom he shares a name.

      30

  • #
    Philip

    Yes when push comes to shove, when reality hits, people can become pragmatic quite quickly. Before that it’s morals and signalling of those morals, theory, and the fantasy narrative.

    50

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    “Nuclear power must be part of the solution to the climate crisis and the rise in energy prices, according to a group of 10 EU countries led by France and Poland who signed a joint opinion article published across major European newspapers on Monday.”

    https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/10-eu-countries-back-nuclear-power-in-eu-green-finance-taxonomy/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9707&pnespid=7edsCXhdMKkbhf3L_TSpS8.V5BP1Dod5LeGtw.NzrwNmDXLjf6gQ6IgnmDPRhiRn9vVvycDY

    There is no climate crisis.

    50

    • #
      RickWill

      There is no climate crisis.

      Correct – but there could be a weather one in three months when a good number of Europeans freeze to death.

      Northern summers are getting warmer but northern winters are getting colder. And winters have only just started getting colder.

      40

  • #
    David Maddison

    The Left keep telling us that the unreliables are now cheaper than reliables.

    So in that case why is enforced purchase or subsidies required for unreliables?

    The free market will sort it out.

    In any case, people should be able to buy from whatever energy source they want as long as the market is free.

    Leftists will no doubt purchase only wind and solar. They can’t go wrong because they claim it is cheap.

    Rational thinkers will choose nuclear, coal, gas or real hydro (not SH2) depending on price or preference. They will only choose solar or wind if its free market price is less than the reliable.

    Smart electricity meters can allow such a plan to operate.

    80

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Prepare for fair weather and a stable climate …

    “Setting out some of the plan’s targets, Macron said France would by 2030 build a low-carbon plane, a small modular reactor as well as two megafactories for the production of green hydrogen.

    It would also produce large numbers of electric vehicles.”

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/macron-launches-47-billion-france-2030-investment-plan-20211012-p58zfq.html

    All brought to you by fossil fuels.

    40

  • #
    scaper...

    Peter Ridd has lost his appeal.

    60

    • #
      Annie

      Just seen in The Australian and commented on Tues Unthreaded. I am disgusted by most of what passes for justice these days.

      170

      • #
        clarence.t

        Yep, It appears that telling the truth and presenting facts, exposing scientific malpractice…

        … is against JCU policy.

        10

  • #
    Steve of Cornubia

    Greenies should accept the majority of any blame the human race accepts for the alleged AGW, by virtue of their campaigns to ban nuclear power generation decades ago. Had nuclear been widely adopted, coal and gas could have been rendered pretty much obsolete by now.

    50

  • #
    Flok

    Something about the word “popularity” in current age should be abandoned as a major risk factor to rational functionality.

    Renewable energy reached the dead end of performance through said popularity and its problems will only get bigger in time.

    A mix of nuclear, coal and gas offer diversity to the large landscape of Australia. Coal and gas will get better in efficiency and more efficient they get more redundant solar and wind will get.

    Misleading main objectives of solar and wind nowadays are to address the energy requirements. No, the main objective of pushing this nonsense was to reduce CO2. It failed and it continue to fail and it will never achieve such objective. Australia never had energy problem till renewables hit the stage.

    From 2012 to 2020 over $3.2 trillion dollars was invested in climate change. Not to ignore every other educational pitch and appliance over the last 30 years. Well, CO2 did not drop in output and it did not drop in atmospheric concentration. The current end result of this lunacy is that we have paid USD$17 per tonne of CO2 to increase it alongside of cost of living.

    Current challenge for humanity out of this mess is to get back to basics, be rational and be functional. There is no wiggle room left.

    20

  • #
    David Maddison

    It’s bizarre that Singapore wants to build a “solar farm” 4000km away in Australia when their energy problem could easily be solved by one nuclear reactor.

    I would like to know what subsidies will be getting harvested, since that is the only point of building wind or solar subsidy farms.

    130

    • #
      Dennis

      I read that a Mr M Turnbull is an investor in Mr Forest’s company that is planning the solar installation.

      60

    • #
      Hanrahan

      More high paid green jobs washing the cells/mirrors at night. I’d bet they wouldn’t even get penalty rates.

      20

  • #
    Daffy

    China, politics aside, is a great example of just getting on and doing the practical thing. No gender bending, no woke-ism, no frigging around with climate fantasies. No wealth destroying ‘environmental’ development hurdles, no narcissistic protesters on their highways. If they keep this up, and we keep us what we’re doing, China will rule the world in another 15 seconds.

    50

    • #
      David Maddison

      Australians already have a taste of living under a dictatorship, curfews, dual classes of citizens, internal passports, travel restrictions and the beginnings of a social credit system. In addition, the Left love the Chicomms and act as their apologists and useful idiots, no pay required.

      If or when the Chicomms take over Australia, the only difference will be that things get done. They certainly wouldn’t be talking about a project like a second Sydney international airport for 50 years, they’d just do it. Similarly for roads, dams, pipelines, oil and gas exploration etc..

      90

      • #
        PeterS

        Unfortunately, you speak the truth. We are currently drowning with so much bureaucratic BS it’s not funny any more. It stopped being a joke many years ago and now it’s actually destroying our nation. As you say, the one plus in the CCP taking us over is things will get done and done quickly. It matters not whether the CCP does take us over though; we will end up with a tyranny either way. The only difference will be the colour and style of the uniforms, the language we speak and a few other little things. Also, order will be ensured since no matter who is in control the tyrannical government will not put up with disobedience. It might end up being more fascist like under our home grown form of tyranny but it’s like debating whether it’s better to die from a Chinese sword or an American sword. The end result is identical.

        50

    • #
      Hanrahan

      China can’t make their own chips for cell phones.

      20

  • #
    David Maddison

    Don’t forget that 1.7 billion years ago the Oklo natural nuclear reactor ran for a few hundred thousand years with a perfect safety record…

    61

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Lang (2017) Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone
    https://doi.org/10.3390/en10122169

    Abstract
    This paper presents evidence of the disruption of a transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and finds the benefits forgone as a consequence are substantial. Learning rates are presented for nuclear power in seven countries, comprising 58% of all power reactors ever built globally. Learning rates and deployment rates changed in the late-1960s and 1970s from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment. Historical nuclear global capacity, electricity generation and overnight construction costs are compared with the counterfactual that pre-disruption learning and deployment rates had continued to 2015. Had the early rates continued, nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost. The additional nuclear power could have substituted for 69,000–186,000 TWh of coal and gas generation, thereby avoiding up to 9.5 million deaths and 174 Gt CO2 emissions. In 2015 alone, nuclear power could have replaced up to 100% of coal-generated and 76% of gas-generated electricity, thereby avoiding up to 540,000 deaths and 11 Gt CO2. Rapid progress was achieved in the past and could be again, with appropriate policies. Research is needed to identify impediments to progress, and policy is needed to remove them.

    40

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity

    Nuclear power is and always has been the safest way to generate electricity. In the USA and Europe electricity generation with coal causes 150,000 more deaths per TWh than nuclear, natural gas 40,000 more and wind 1,500 more (see Table 1 below).

    Nuclear could become the cheapest way to generate electricity. Were it not for the unwarranted fear of this technology that was generated by the anti-nuclear power protest movement starting in the 1960’s [1] (Section 3.6), nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost [1] (Table 3 bottom panel).

    The cost of nuclear power can be reduced by removing regulatory impediments. Internalising the externality costs of all energy technologies would further increase nuclear’s competitiveness and, therefore, its deployment rate and rate of cost reduction.

    The negative externalities of energy technologies can be largely internalised by taxing or subsidising them in proportion to their health impacts. The health impacts of electricity generation technologies can be internalised by either taxing technologies in proportion to their health impacts or subsidising those with lower impacts in proportion to the impacts of the technologies with the highest health impacts.

    A rough calculation suggests that, to internalise the cost of deaths attributable to electricity generation technologies in the US, generators should be required to pay compensation for the deaths caused by each technology. Table 1 presents estimates of the number of deaths per TWh attributable to electricity generation technologies, the cost per MWh and the total cost to the economy. The calculations use US$11.6 million Value of Statistical Life (VSL) [2], deaths per TWh for each technology [3,4] and US electricity generation per technology in 2019 [5].

    Table 1: Health impact of deaths attributable to electricity generation technologies in the US: deaths per TWh, cost of deaths in US$/MWh at Value of a Statistical Life, electricity generation per technology (GWh/a) and total cost of deaths per technology (US$bn).

    Technology Deaths/TWh US$/MWh GWh/a Total, US$bn
    Coal 15 174 966,148 168.11
    Oil 36 418 18,567 7.75
    Natural Gas 4 46 1,581,815 73.40
    Biofuel/biomass 12 139 58,412 8.13
    Solar (rooftop) 0.44 5.1 72,234 0.37
    Wind 0.15 1.7 300,071 0.52
    Hydro 0.005 0.058 273,707 0.016
    Nuclear 0.0001 0.001 809,409 0.001

    If each technology was required to pay compensation for the annual cost of the deaths it causes in the US, the estimated amounts each would have to pay per MWh are:

    Technology US$/MWh
    Coal 174
    Oil 418
    Natural Gas 46
    Biofuel/biomass 139
    Solar (rooftop) 5.1
    Wind 1.7
    Hydro 0.058
    Nuclear 0.001

    References:

    1. Lang, P. Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10122169
    2. U.S. Department of Transportation. Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis. 2021. https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
    3. Wang, B. Deaths by Energy Source in Forbes. 2012. http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html
    4. Conca, J. How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources. 2012. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid
    5. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Total Energy, Data, Electricity, Table 7.2a Electricity Net Generation: Total (All Sectors). https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T07.02A#/

    110

    • #
      Graeme#4

      Very interesting data Peter. Thanks.

      30

      • #
        Peter Lang

        See more comments with references and links added below.

        10

        • #
          Graeme#4

          Thanks Peter. Have saved many of the links for future study.
          Do you have more info on the Chinese nuclear power stations, such as their build cost, build times, etc? I have found some new info on some of the builds, but would like more info.

          00

    • #
      Peter Lang

      To make it easier to understand the data in the two tables, copy the tables into Excel or Word and separate the data into columns (separate the columns on spaces).

      10

  • #
    David Maddison

    In the 1960’s Australia identified two suitable sites for nuclear reactors which were going to be built. In NSW it was Jervis Bay, construction actually started and you can see the remains today. In Afdanistan it was on French Island.

    70

    • #
      Dennis

      Yes, but for crony capitalist high wealth investors would nuclear be a better profit source than subsidised wind, solar and batteries?

      sarc.

      30

  • #
    David Maddison

    I wish Australians could overcome their terror of covid as they did with nuclear submarines.

    30

  • #

    HYDROGEN !
    Here we go again with another red herring to distract from the real issues..
    NSW to invest $3bn to seed the development of a (green ?) hydrogen industry with key hubs in the state by 2030.
    The belief is that Hydrogen industries can replace coal industries and employment with it substuting for diesel and petrol as well as heating fuel and industrial processes.
    Due to the reduction of smokers, I am convinced that no one involved has a “Fag packet” to scribble some basic numbers on and get a feel for what is involved.
    https://www.energy.nsw.gov.au/renewables/renewable-generation/hydrogen

    80

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      I heard that on the radio.
      It’s a complete joke except for the fact that it will rob us of more hard earned.

      30

    • #
      Ronin

      Hydrogen is a joke, I’ve worked with it and it’s junk for they want it for.

      40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      This is the third round of hydrogen “the wonder fix”.
      The previous enthusiasms faded when people started wondering about the cost.

      10

  • #
    Dennis

    On television recently I viewed a story about diesel fuel being delivered to a remote location in Outback Australia, a three trailer fuel tanker road train that had to leave two trailer on the main road to access the delivery site, a Diesel engine powered electricity generator station.

    The operator on site commented that 10,000 litres of Diesel a week is required.

    I thought that it was a perfect example of a location for a modular nuclear generator, no emissions from generator or from fuel delivery vehicles.

    60

    • #
      Ronin

      Dennis, what channel was that story on.

      10

      • #
        Dennis

        It was 7 Mate on Tuesday late evening, Outback Truckers, one story of several in that broadcast.

        Late evening television channel surfing find, excellent getting ready for bed viewing.

        10

    • #
      Hanrahan

      Leaving Charters Towers for Darwin everywhere is “perfect” for a modular reactor. Currently it’s diesel and OCG over a vast area.

      20

      • #
        Ronin

        There’s no reason why we can’t build a 30MW reactor set here, except maybe for the fuel rods.

        00

      • #
        Dennis

        I have done a lot of driving around Australia and often sight road train fuel tankers, some have four tankers behind the prime mover truck.

        As you would know there is no electricity grid and many generator units fuelled with Diesel/Distillate, and of course vehicles and machinery.

        20

  • #
    Peter Lang

    How to reduce the cost of nuclear power

    To reduce the cost of nuclear power the unjustifiable regulatory imposts must be removed. Once they are removed the rate of development of new technologies will accelerate. Learning rates could return to the pre-1970’s rates, or faster, so that costs reduce at 25% or more per doubling of global cumulative capacity of constructions starts.

    Add the costs of deaths per TWh to all technologies and the non-nuclear technologies will be highly disadvantaged so that nuclear would displace the other technologies even faster.

    30

    • #
      Peter Lang

      Correction:

      “cumulative global capacity of constructions starts” not “global cumulative capacity of constructions starts”

      00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Impacts of, and how best to respond to, major nuclear accidents

    Thomas, P.; May, J. Coping after a big nuclear accident. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.09.013

    Thomas, P.J. Quantitative guidance on how best to respond to a big nuclear accident. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.07.026

    Waddington, I.; Thomas, P.; Taylor, R.; Vaughan, G. J-value assessment of relocation measures following the nuclear power plant accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 16-49.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.03.012

    Waddington, I.; Thomas, P.; Taylor, R.; Vaughan, G. J-value assessment of remediation measures following the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accidents. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 16-49.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.07.003

    Yumashev, D.; Johnson, P.; Thomas, P. Economically optimal strategies for medium-term recovery after a major nuclear reactor accident. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.08.022

    20

  • #
    Peter Lang

    3 Regarding the Linear no threshold hypothesis
    3.1 Precaution and Assumption and the Deceits of Corrupted Science

    A-Bombs, Bears and Corrupted Science; Reassessing radiation safety

    Precaution and Assumption and the Deceits of Corrupted Science

    Introduction

    The adoption of the so-called ‘linear no-threshold assumption’ (hereafter LNT), which is used to estimate cancer risks in the low-dose zone, was due to a series of difficult-to-comprehend errors, deceptions and purposeful scientific misconduct by a relatively small group of strategically placed scientific elites in the United States. These individuals included Nobel Prize winners and other high achievers in the field of radiation genetics, who not only thought they were saving humanity from the harmful consequences of all things nuclear, but were equally concerned with ensuring that grant funding to support their research would never end. While their duplicitous actions have been hidden from view for 70 years, their story has unravelled in recent years in a series of painstaking investigations of newly uncovered scientific reports, personal letters, internal memos and other materials.

    These factual errors and misrepresentations were enveloped and advanced by the error making experts to ensure the LNT assumption’s adoption across the globe. Regulators then never looked back, never thought they might be wrong or considered that they might have been misled.

    The LNT assumption subsequently led to the wholesale overregulation of the nuclear industry, playing as it did on fears that permeated society at all levels. These fears lead to vast protests, delays in plant construction, massive cost increases, cancellation of newly proposed plants, and the rather rapid strangulation of the nuclear industry, despite ever growing societal energy needs and emerging political, regulatory and scientific concerns over increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The story I tell will show that the LNT theory lacked a proper scientific foundation, that science needs to be self-correcting and that it is time to reconsider nuclear regulation.

    Calabrese, E.J.P., Mikko. A-Bombs, Bears and Corrupted Science; Reassessing radiation safety. Global Warming Policy Foundation: UK, 2020; p 28. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/06/Calabrese-Paunio-2020.pdf

    40

  • #
    Peter Lang

    3.2 Are We Approaching the End of the Linear No-Threshold Era?

    Abstract:

    “The linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation-induced cancer was adopted by national and international advisory bodies in the 1950s and has guided radiation protection policies worldwide since then. The resulting strict regulations have increased the compliance costs for the various uses of radiation, including nuclear medicine. The concerns about low levels of radiation due to the absence of a threshold have also resulted in adverse consequences. Justification of the LNT model was based on the concept that low levels of radiation increase mutations and that increased mutations imply increased cancers. This concept may not be valid. Low-dose radiation boosts defenses such as antioxidants and DNA repair enzymes. The boosted defenses would reduce the endogenous DNA damage that would have occurred in the subsequent period, and so the result would be reduced DNA damage and mutations. Whereas mutations are necessary for causing cancer, they are not sufficient since the immune system eliminates cancer cells or keeps them under control. The immune system plays an extremely important role in preventing cancer, as indicated by the substantially increased cancer risk in immune-suppressed patients. Hence, since low-dose radiation enhances the immune system, it would reduce cancers, resulting in a phenomenon known as radiation hormesis. There is considerable evidence for radiation hormesis and against the LNT model, including studies of atomic bomb survivors, background radiation, environmental radiation, cancer patients, medical radiation, and occupational exposures. Though Commentary 27 published by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements concluded that recent epidemiologic studies broadly support the LNT model, a critical examination of the studies has shown that they do not. Another deficiency of Commentary 27 is that it did not consider the vast available evidence for radiation hormesis. Other advisory body reports that have supported the LNT model have similar deficiencies. Advisory bodies are urged to critically evaluate the evidence supporting both sides and arrive at an objective conclusion on the validity of the LNT model. Considering the strength of the evidence against the LNT model and the weakness of the evidence for it, the present analysis indicates that advisory bodies would be compelled to reject the LNT model. Hence, we may be approaching the end of the LNT model era.”

    Doss, M. Are We Approaching the End of the Linear No-Threshold Era? Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2018, 59, 1786-1793. http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/59/12/1786.long

    30

  • #
    Peter Lang

    3.3 Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 1 – The Russell-Muller debate

    The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 1. The Russell-Muller debate

    Abstract
    This paper assesses the discovery of the dose-rate effect in radiation genetics and how it challenged fundamental tenets of the linear non-threshold (LNT) dose response model, including the assumptions that all mutational damage is cumulative and irreversible and that the dose-response is linear at low doses. Newly uncovered historical information also describes how a key 1964 report by the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) addressed the effects of dose rate in the assessment of genetic risk. This unique story involves assessments by two leading radiation geneticists, Hermann J. Muller and William L. Russell, who independently argued that the report’s Genetic Summary Section on dose rate was incorrect while simultaneously offering vastly different views as to what the report’s summary should have contained. This paper reveals occurrences of scientific disagreements, how conflicts were resolved, which view(s) prevailed and why. During this process the Nobel Laureate, Muller, provided incorrect information to the ICRP in what appears to have been an attempt to manipulate the decision-making process and to prevent the dose-rate concept from being adopted into risk assessment practices.

    Calabrese, E.J. The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 1. The Russell-Muller debate. Environmental Research 2017, 154, 435-451. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935116309331

    3.4 Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2 – How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT

    The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2. How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT

    Abstract
    This paper reveals that nearly 25 years after the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) I Committee (1972) used Russell’s dose-rate data to support the adoption of the linear-no-threshold (LNT) dose response model for genetic and cancer risk assessment, Russell acknowledged a significant under-reporting of the mutation rate of the historical control group. This error, which was unknown to BEIR I, had profound implications, leading it to incorrectly adopt the LNT model, which was a decision that profoundly changed the course of risk assessment for radiation and chemicals to the present.

    Calabrese, E.J. The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2. How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT. Environmental research 2017, 154, 452-458. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935116309343

    30

  • #
    Peter Lang

    3.5 Chernobyl Accident 1986

    (Updated April 2020)
    • The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel.
    • The resulting steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the environment, with the deposition of radioactive materials in many parts of Europe.
    • Two Chernobyl plant workers died due to the explosion on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation syndrome.
    • The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has concluded that, apart from some 6500 thyroid cancers (resulting in 15 fatalities), “there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident.”
    • Some 350,000 people were evacuated as a result of the accident, but resettlement of areas from which people were relocated is ongoing.

    The conclusions of this 2005 Chernobyl Forum study (revised version published 2006) are in line with earlier expert studies, notably the UNSCEAR 2000 report which said that “apart from this [thyroid cancer] increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure.” There is little evidence of any increase in leukaemia, even among clean-up workers where it might be most expected. Radiation-induced leukemia has a latency period of 5-7 years, so any potential leukemia cases due to the accident would already have developed. A low number of the clean-up workers, who received the highest doses, may have a slightly increased risk of developing solid cancers in the long term. To date, however, there is no evidence of any such cancers having developed. Apart from these, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) said: “The great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.”
    https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx

    Video: ‘Experts talk about the health effects of Chernobyl’
    https://youtu.be/PZUvoeIArDM

    Deaths
    2 during the explosion
    28 in the 30 days following the accident
    15 thyroid cancers since the accident
    19 more emergency workers died 1987–2004
    64 total

    WHO – ‘Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group “Health”
    https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/WHO%20Report%20on%20Chernobyl%20Health%20Effects%20July%2006.pdf

    50

    • #
      Peter+Fitzroy

      and the japanese one?

      05

      • #
        Peter Lang

        No deaths due to radioactive releases from Chernobyl. All the deaths were due to the disruption of peoples lives due to the forced evacuation and the anxiety and fear the accident, the media and the evacuation caused.

        40

        • #

          Peter Lang
          October 13, 2021 at 4:58 pm · Reply
          No deaths due to radioactive releases from Chernobyl. All the deaths were due to the disruption of peoples lives due to the forced evacuation and the anxiety and fear the accident, the media and the evacuation caused”

          ??….did you mean to say Fukushima ..? Not Chernobyl ?

          00

        • #
          Peter Lang

          Yes. My mistake. I meant Fukushima.

          10

      • #
        Graeme#4

        Presume you mean Fukushima? None due to the nuclear plant problem.

        30

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Latest news, The Ukrainian Govertment is offering (very) low cost housing in the former Chernobyl area, where about 7,000 people now live.
      And SBS ran a story by some reporter who ived in the zone for a year.

      10

  • #
    Ronin

    After the Three Mile Island incident, an inquiry was held, they examined the manual for the ops, it was a load of engineer gobbeldygook written by engineers for engineers, so it was simplified so that if a water level discrepancy occurred again, the manual says, ‘ can you determine the reactor level by this, that or the other means, if no, shut it down immediately’.

    00

    • #

      Read the analysis at the link for comparisons between TMI and Chernobyl, and this report was from 2009.

      Three Mile Island and Chernobyl: What Went Wrong And Why Today’s Reactors Are Safe

      You CANNOT compare the two accidents.

      Tony.

      40

      • #
        Hanrahan

        The TMI incident was just that. The safety systems were severely tested but worked.

        I’ll follow your link to see if my memory is accurate. 🙂

        00

      • #
        Hanrahan

        Who wrote this:

        Interestingly, the World Health Organization has also identified a condition called “paralyzing fatalism,” which is caused by “persistent myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation.” [12] In other words, the propagation of ignorance by anti-nuclear activists has caused more harm to the affected populations than has the radioactive fallout from the actual accident.
        My bolding.

        10

      • #

        Ref Chernobyl..
        From Tonys link…
        THIS was a key factor that made the incident so much worse..

        The episode was exacerbated by a second design flaw: The Chernobyl reactors lacked fully enclosed containment buildings, a basic safety installation for commercial reactors in the U.S

        NO CONTAINMENT BUILDING ,!
        That is a fundamental feature of all Western reactors.

        10

  • #

    When it comes to the use of Nuclear power for electricity generation, why would you not refer to the U.S.

    They have 55 individual power plants with 94 operating reactors, with each reactor driving a steam turbine/generator Unit.

    The current Nameplate is 96,500MW and read that again.

    That’s from just those 94 Units, so the average generator is almost 1030MW.

    They are delivering (as at the end of 2020) 790TWH. (790,000,000MWH) and they are currently operating at 93.4% Capacity Factor.

    The AVERAGE age of ALL the reactors is 39 years, all but double that expected (hoped for anyway) of any wind or solar plant.

    The power delivered from Nuclear power in 2011 was the same as is being delivered now.

    In fact over those 10 years, the Nameplate has actually gone down, and this is the first year that the generated delivered power has fallen. (down from 809.5TWH last year, at a CF of 95.63%) For the nine years before that, it either stayed around the same, or went up each year.

    That’s 39 years average age and still operating at 93.4% CF.

    Okay, comparison then, same end of 2020 data.

    U.S. Wind Nameplate – 122,500MW
    U.S. Wind generated power – 337,500GWH (at a CF of 31.4%)

    So wind power has a nameplate that is 16.6% HIGHER, and the power delivered is only 42% that of Nuclear power, and nuclear power has twice the life span.

    Seriously, there just is NO comparison.

    Tony.

    100

    • #
      Graeme#4

      Do the CFS of solar or wind reduce with age?

      00

      • #
        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Solar about 1% of remaining capacity per annum (depends a bit on strength of sunlight).
          Wind, not known. Lifetime of on-shore turbines in the UK in the early years was 7-9 years as output dropped below the cost of maintenance. As for offshore turbines who knows? Supposedly longer but some ‘farms’ are in (financial) trouble after 1-2 years. And, as you might have heard from Europe, poor weather makes them doubtful investments.

          10

          • #
            Graeme#4

            Thanks Graeme. Actually lifetimes of offshore wind turbines is less than those onshore. In UK, the offshore turbine lifetime is around 10 years – have a reference to this somewhere.

            00

      • #
        Hanrahan

        PV solar – definitely.

        As an aside: Korea Zinc has installed 1 mill solar cells. As they fail how do they isolate the faulty cell?

        10

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Tony Irwin, The Case for SMRs in Australia (Second Edition): http://www.smrnuclear.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The-case-for-SMRs-in-Australia_Aug2021.pdf

    Corrected Overnight Capital Cost in Australia of Nuclear Power, Renewables and Fossil Fuels with CCS (figures in AUD) http://www.smrnuclear.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2021_9_Cost-of-Nuclear-Power-and-Renewables.pdf

    Other reports on SMRs for Australia: http://www.smrnuclear.com.au/references-and-publications/smr-s-publications/

    10

    • #
      Graeme#4

      Thanks for the links Peter. The cost figures analysis was very good, showing how the cost quickly alters when all factors are included.

      20

  • #
    Serp

    You’d be this Peter Lang http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP4PLang.pdf innit?

    How quickly could you build the French Island plant that David Maddison alluded to?

    00

  • #
    Hanrahan

    How much water does a nuclear plant need? I’ve heard A LOT.

    The questions are how much and is the loss from the cooling towers or warm water discharge.

    The reason for the question is that there is little, or no, uncommitted water in this brown land of ours. Mt Isa would be a great place for a modest sized plant but L. Julius was built to water the city and for irrigation. A quick search shows they are talking about raising the spillway already so it is clear they have none to spare. But if the water is discharged as warm water, a large cooling pond would give it back to irrigators.

    The Ord has plenty of water and one there could supply a massive area if enough transmission line were built. The Western Qld mineral belt, centred on Mt Isa to the east, Darwin to the north, The Alice to the centre and the whole of WA’s mineral provinces to the south.

    Maybe the transmission lines would cost more than the power station but ATM this vast, productive area is poorly serviced with power and large road-trains loaded with diesel are the order of the day.

    31

    • #
    • #
      Tel

      Australia has heaps of uncommitted water … it’s called “rain” and a few months ago we had so much that part of Sydney was flooded (and that was of course blamed on climate change).

      Most of it is so uncommitted that it washes out into the ocean, but there’s this machine called “a dam” which amazingly can actually give you a place to put the water. All we need to do is build a few of those and maybe some pipes and stuff. Queensland has floods all the time, most of that gets thrown away. The Northwest (Port Hedland, etc) has at least one month of heavy rain every year (usually Feb but it’s variable) … when all the roads turn to mud … unfortunately that’s the ONLY rain they get all year, but hey, storage is the answer.

      20

      • #
        Hanrahan

        “Dam” Damn easy to say, hard to build where the rain is not regular enough to make them economic.

        Townsville suffered a massive flood a few yrs ago but our piddlin’ river still needs emergency argumentation from Burdekin Falls dam. Many millions have already been spent on our dam and radial gates. There is no more to wring out of the river.

        Even the Burdekin Falls Dam is nearly fully committed. Townsville Council has a reserve [I assume it costs] and the irrigators in the Burdekin and Houghton Deltas have bought allocations and spent millions individually developing their farms.

        Where do you suggest we build a dam with enough water to cool a nuclear plant before other demands?

        20

    • #

      Hanrahan
      October 13, 2021 at 7:11 pm · Reply
      How much water does a nuclear plant need? …..

      Outdated info..
      Modern SMR. Plants need NO process water.
      Read some of the reports in #51.

      20

      • #
        Hanrahan

        So SMRs don’t need more water than that necessary to keep the lawn green.

        OTOH we have Diablo Canyon. Note the water discharge:

        https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/fBj0M-UaFRxfpkd57uwAxBL4NrI=/37×0:3673×2727/920×613/filters:focal(37×0:3673×2727):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/49912331/GettyImages-110400695.0.jpg

        Will you gingerbeers take my question seriously?

        01

        • #
          Graeme#4

          Look at the Michael Shellenberger article that covers Diablo. He has actually been there.

          00

        • #
          Graeme#4

          And the “gingerbeers” have actually noted your comments. If you spend a couple of hours doing as Chad suggests, which I did this morning, you will find a lot of factual data that hopefully will provide some thought.
          For starters, the cost of transmission line construction in Aust. Is around $2.53m/km, so your suggestions of locating power sources well away from population hubs is impractical. It would be far cheaper to pipe cheap gas from the Pilbara to other states.

          00

  • #
    Turtle

    So once everyone works out that nuclear is the only solution, if you believe in climate Armageddon, will they look back on renewables the same way that we look back on Turnbull’s compact fluorescent tubes: expensive, massively overrated in terms of longevity and performance, and environmentally unsound? That’s what the future looks like to me.

    In the meantime, Australia will be left behind again, with our idiotic ban on nuclear.

    40

  • #
    Graeme#4

    Presume you mean Fukushima? No deaths due to the Nuclear plant problems.

    00

  • #
    Jonesy

    Using a modular MSR based on the airplane reactor model we could produce diesel and jetfuel out of air

    Power and heat applied for the betterment of humanity.
    CARBON NEUTRAL FUELS. What a breakthrough for sustainability to be able to produce our most used fuels, or most efficient energy storage for transport without hurting the planet.

    00

  • #
    Beta Blocker

    Keeping nuclear’s capital costs under control is now the most important issue that advocates of nuclear power must address.

    Having been in the belly of the beast of a 1980’s nuclear construction project, it’s my opinion that the long-term future of nuclear power here in the United States depends upon successfully fielding the Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Here in the US, the SMRs now represent the only hope we have for getting the end-to-end process of designing, constructing, and commissioning a nuclear power plant under complete and effective management control.

    Thirty-five years ago, a raft of studies and reports were published which analyzed the cost growth problems and the severe quality assurance issues the nuclear construction industry was then experiencing. Those studies from the 1980’s had a number of common threads:

    — Lack of Nuclear Project Management Skills
    — Mismatch of Written Plans versus Field Implementation
    — Complex, First of a Kind Projects
    — Strength of the Industrial Base
    — A Changing Technical Environment
    — Lack of Design Maturity at the Start of Construction
    — A Changing Regulatory Environment
    — Project Management Effectiveness
    — Issues with Matrix Management Systems
    — Overconfidence Based on Past Project Success
    — Reliance on Contractor Expertise
    — Management Control Systems
    — Cost & Schedule Control Systems
    — Issues with Quality Assurance
    — Construction Productivity & Progress
    — Project Financing and Completion Schedule
    — A Change in Strategy by the Anti-nuclear Activists
    — Job Site Whistleblowers
    — Lack of Regulatory Oversight Effectiveness
    — Lack of Early NRC Presence at Construction Sites
    — Lack of NRC Boldness & Risk Taking
    — Working Relationships with Regulators

    These are not yesterday’s issues. Most of the issues listed here are the same ones that caused the VC Summer and Vogtle 3 & 4 projects to blow their original cost and schedule estimates so badly — with the result that VC Summer was cancelled outright and that Vogtle 3 & 4 went from 2012’s estimate of $12 billion dollars US to its current estimate of $28 billion dollars US.

    The details of these problems and issues are further outlined in my WUWT comment from September, 2021:

    “A History of Nuclear Construction’s Cost & Schedule Overruns in the 1970’s and 80’s”

    The changing regulatory and technical environment of the 1970’s and early 1980’s did in fact increase nuclear power’s costs over and above what was expected to be the norm in the early 1970’s cost estimates. Nuclear construction projects with strong management teams and effective project management systems paid for those changes only once. Projects which were poorly managed paid for those changes multiple times over.

    If mandated changes to work practices and to nuclear technology are included as necessary activities in the baseline cost estimates, those 1970’s and early 1980’s nuclear projects which had a strong management team and strong management control systems at all levels of the project organization generally succeeded in delivering their projects on cost and on schedule. Those projects that didn’t have strong management teams were generally incapable of dealing with the changing technical and regulatory environment and became paralyzed in the face of the many QA issues, work productivity issues, and cost control issues they were experiencing.

    By the end of the 1980’s, most of nuclear’s project management issues had been resolved and the nuclear construction industry was well-positioned to move forward, if new orders had been forthcoming. But it was not to be. Stiff competition from natural gas beginning in the early 1990’s put an end to any prospects for new nuclear construction for another twenty years.

    In any case, the burdens of maintaining strong regulatory oversight over the nuclear power industry are not going away. Not now, not ever. But what is just as true today as it was in the 1970’s and 1980’s is this: the project management discipline needed to deliver nuclear-grade quality assurance is the same project management discipline needed to deliver all of the other key parts of any large-scale high technology construction project.

    Moreover, in comparison with the 1970’s, the regulatory environment for nuclear power in the United States has stabilized. Here in the 2020’s, the burden of complying with the NRC’s regulations is a known commodity.

    And so the managers of any new-build nuclear power plant know from the very beginning what is expected of them in the area of nuclear regulatory compliance. They have no excuses for not taking the full cost of these burdens into account when developing their project’s cost and schedule estimates. They have no excuses for not following the regulatory compliance plans they’ve described in their NRC license applications.

    00

  • #
    Hanrahan

    Occasionally a thought crosses my mind and reading here I wondered: What about the Snows Of Kilimanjaro? That they would disappear was one the dire GW outcomes I remember reading about.

    So! Is there still snow on Kilimanjaro? Turns out it is a meaningless Q,

    Consider the ski season
    The best Ski Season At Kilimanjaro is in the summer, from October-May, the worst ski season is winter. Why in the world is this? Because snow falls in summer.

    What? [collective gasp]

    Yes, snowfall on Mt. Kilimanjaro is not a fuction of temperature, its a function of moisture. When moist warm air from below the mountain get pushed up and over the cold mountain, the rapidly cooling air can’t hold as much moisture as the warmer air, so you get rain and snow. Therefore, the best ski season is [drum roll] in the summer, when the moist warm air is blowing.

    10

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Australian report on small modular reactor potential

    The Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) has issued a report Small Modular Reactors in the Australian Context [1], written by Dr. Ben Heard. It provides an SMR technology overview and assesses their potential role in Australia’s economy with operating cost estimates. It focuses on three SMRs: NuScale’s Power Module, GE-Hitachi’s BWRX-300 and Terrestrial Energy’s Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR). The report says that under conservative assumptions, the future LCOE for these would range between A$64/MWh and A$77/MWh (US$46 to $56/MWh). “If realized, this would make it the cheapest 24/7 zero emission power source available in Australia.”

    The MCA calls on the Australian federal government to pivot from its current stance of being an observer of SMR technology to begin quickly adopting action plans to include these solutions into the country’s energy mix. Some policy and legislative change “will allow Australia to match a diverse range of nations from Canada to Rwanda who are actively establishing the context and capabilities to deploy SMRs” and not be left behind. The substantial Australian Workers Union has called for the government to put SMRs at the heart of its decarbonisation plans, in line with the national commitment to nuclear-powered submarines.

    Reference

    1. Ben Heard (2021), Small Modular Reactors in the Australian Context
    https://www.minerals.org.au/sites/default/files/Small%20Modular%20Reactors%20in%20the%20Australian%20Context%202021.pdf

    10

  • #
    peter styles

    Humans breath in the atmosphere at around 410PPM CO2, and emit it at 40,000PPM.CO2 is an odorless, colorless gas and is not listed as a pollutant. The Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii for over sixty years has measured the increase in CO2at 2PPM each year (290-410PPM)If the increasing trend had been reversed (290-170 PPM )life on Earth would cease to exist .It would be easy for Australia to commit to zero carbon emissions by 2050 .Carbon is not emitted into the atmosphere ,as its not a gas its CO2 .

    00