There has been much made about a ban on nuclear energy in Australia legislated in the 70's. Now, I may be entirely wrong (it was a long time ago) but I thought, nuclear plants were banned, not so much because of the the plants, but, because there was no confidence in the way the waste was to be disposed of. Not only waste from local plants but deals were also being considered for Australia to be a dumping ground for the rest of the world.
If this is still the case, then "the powers that be" promoting using nuclear plants because it is clean and green, and if there are no new methods of disposing the waste, then maybe its not as green as promoted and we should still reject it on those grounds. Australia is polluted enough without adding to it with something that will be deadly for many many years.
landy said
09:43 PM Oct 20, 2021
We have some very strange standard in this country MSG . If we are happy to store the nuclear waste for other countries why not get the nuclear benefits for ourselves and store our own nuclear waste. The same strange standards apply to coal we are phasing it out and loosing the benefits of it ourselves, because it is supposedly bad for the world. But will happily sell it to other countries that are building coal burning power stations as fast as they can, go figure. Landy
Peter_n_Margaret said
12:01 AM Oct 21, 2021
Australia has no system of taking care of its own nuclear waste, let alone taking it form other countries. We don't even have a place to store low level waste that comes from hospitals and industrial processes. It is currently stored in basements all over the country. Every smoke detector is technically nuclear waste when its life is up. Just recently an agreement was reached to build a low level waste facility in SA.
We do have a small nuclear research reactor at Lucas heights. It is decades old and in need of replacement. High level waste from that reactor goes to France for processing and is then returned to Australia, but we still have no long term storage facility for it.
A couple of decades ago I thought nuclear power was the way to go for Australia, but no more. Its time is past. Very expensive, decades to design and build and no "plan" for end of life problems. Solar on the other hand is cheap and if you want some more you can build it next week. The materials are mostly 100% recyclable at life's end. Cheers, Peter
-- Edited by Peter_n_Margaret on Thursday 21st of October 2021 12:01:44 AM
dorian said
04:42 AM Oct 21, 2021
It's not just about the waste. I think Fukushima and Chernobyl are lessons that have yet to be forgotten. Would you want a nuclear plant in your neighbourhood? If the answer is no, then why should you expect others to tolerate one in theirs?
msg said
11:55 AM Oct 21, 2021
Fukushima & Chernobyl are later happenings I think.
msg said
12:18 PM Oct 21, 2021
Oh well, I was wrong on this. Seemed like a lot longer ago.
Simple answer to the question in Google. "Nuclear power was prohibited in Australia in 1998, horsetraded for the passage of legislation centralising radiation regulation. Public debate at the time, flamed by the anti-nuclear movement, centred on the replacement of the Lucas Heights reactor."
msg said
01:28 PM Oct 21, 2021
My apologies Dorian
dorian said
03:31 PM Oct 21, 2021
I think nuclear energy is potentially the best solution, but it needs to be fusion, not fission.
-- Edited by dorian on Thursday 21st of October 2021 03:31:38 PM
Cupie said
12:43 AM Oct 22, 2021
dorian wrote:
I think nuclear energy is potentially the best solution, but it needs to be fusion, not fission.
-- Edited by dorian on Thursday 21st of October 2021 03:31:38 PM
X2
oldbloke said
02:50 PM Oct 22, 2021
Personally I think we should have a s mall one in each see state to provide some base load.
Cupie said
04:19 PM Oct 22, 2021
The major problem with N Fusion is that it is still largely experimental with the first facility in 2025 & perhaps commercially available in 2030.
Perhaps the future lies along the road of commencing the roll out of a minimal number of Fission SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) keeping in mind that even modern Plants come with horrendous cost eg The proposed UK plant has a projected lifetime bill of 37 Billion UK Pounds.
It is suggested that after 60 years of Nuclear experience, modern plants have far greater built in safety, can re use old fuel (with 'fast' reactors producing waste that degrades in <100 years) and they are also perhaps cheaper especially if global demand for them increases.
In any case we need to get our bums into gear after having wasted more than a decade floundering about in the political cess pit.
Buzz Lightbulb said
06:43 PM Oct 22, 2021
dorian wrote:
I think nuclear energy is potentially the best solution, but it needs to be fusion, not fission.
-- Edited by dorian on Thursday 21st of October 2021 03:31:38 PM
Just another 20 years, and then another 20 years, and .....
Buzz Lightbulb said
06:46 PM Oct 22, 2021
Nuclear power plants are not that green. The concrete used in them emits heaps of CO2 and it costs a heck of a lot of energy to decommission them.
peter67 said
07:32 PM Oct 22, 2021
Neither are windmills and boy don't they look ugly.
Grasshopper1 said
02:41 PM Oct 23, 2021
There's not actually much in decommissioning a windmill!
AND they don't often require a decommission either
Mike Harding said
03:40 PM Oct 23, 2021
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
dorian wrote:
I think nuclear energy is potentially the best solution, but it needs to be fusion, not fission.
Just another 20 years, and then another 20 years, and .....
Well... it is a bit difficult... I worked on JET for a while and we did achieve fusion.
If you know the secret please tell us because a *lot* of **very** smart people have worked on it.
Santa said
06:49 PM Oct 23, 2021
Eventually in one form or another we will embrace nuclear energy, just a matter of time.
This from Chris Kenny in the Weekend Australian.
If were serious about net zero, nuclear energy ban must end
The test for those who are eager to sign up to a net-zero by 2050 carbon emissions target is whether they are open to discuss an increased role for nuclear energy. If they rule out nukes rather than agree they must at least be considered in any discussion of a low-emissions energy mix they clearly are more interested in political grandstanding than practical outcomes.
This means that in this country the Australian Labor Party and the Greens are interested in the climate debate primarily for political posturing, and that the Coalition, formally, is unwilling to challenge them although perhaps as many as half of Coalition MPs think that should change.
Pursuing the goal of low-emissions energy without debating the only known source of reliable, emissions-free energy is like framing a budget without discussing taxation.
More than 100 wind farms with close to 3000 wind turbines are spread across our nation after investments totalling about $15bn were effectively underwritten in recent decades by governments renewable energy target yet still they deliver less than 10 per cent of our electricity. Think about the footprint and investment needed to multiply that threefold or close to tenfold and consider also the exacerbation of reliability and price problems, and what you would do when the wind stopped everywhere at once.
One of the reasons Britain has been hit by an electricity supply and price crisis in recent weeks is that its wind farms have been halted by weeks of relative doldrums. True to form, some climate scientists are blaming it on global warming, calling this lack of wind a global stilling.
Large-scale solar might be more predictable but faces the same storage dilemma. Energy experts calculate that if we spent $19bn building more than 200 of those South Australian-style worlds biggest batteries we would store enough electricity to run the national grid for an hour.
The renewable enthusiasts now prominent in both major parties pretend this country can somehow muddle through to net zero with renewables and storage while we retire coal and gas. Snowy Hydro 2.0 will provide one significant storage installation at an outrageous cost; what too few people ask is not whether it is desirable or affordable to develop a renewables-plus-storage model, but whether it is even possible.
Let me save them the trouble it is not. Otherwise it would be happening worldwide. Energy storage through batteries is costly, dirty, and desperately inadequate.
It is no accident that when Boris Johnson this week spoke about British plans for net zero he mentioned big bets on hydrogen, solar and hydro power but assured Brits there would be strong focus on expanding nuclear too for baseload. The world needs energy that is reliable.
As the worlds largest coal and gas exporter, Australia sends enough fuel overseas each year to produce three or four times our own total emissions. But the emissions saved overseas each year by countries using our uranium rather than fossil fuels is enough to cancel out our annual emissions.
Perish the thought we would use uranium ourselves. Yet this is where Australia has found itself, despite a long history with the nuclear industry. Uranium was first mined at Radium Hill, west of Broken Hill, in 1906 and processed in Hunters Hill, Sydney. It was sold overseas mainly for research, including to Marie Curie and Ernest Rutherford.
Chris Kenny visits a solar farm for his Sky News energy special Going Nuclear.
British nuclear weapons were tested at Maralinga, in outback South Australia, in the 1950s and 1960s, and mining continues in the Northern Territory and SA to this day. In the 1960s and 1970s, serious proposals were pursued at Jervis Bay in NSW and in SA to develop a nuclear reactor for electricity generation but they fell by the wayside, primarily because of an abundance of coal and gas.
The Lucas Heights research and nuclear medicine reactor was established on Sydneys southern outskirts in the 1950s and still operates, with a new reactor commissioned in 2007. Political controversy over the weapons tests and mining ventures was intense during the Cold War, and into the 1980s and 1990s as Labor agreed to allow three uranium mines nationally.
The hangover has seen local governments declare themselves nuclear-free zones, and some state governments ban even uranium exploration. Bizarrely, nuclear energy generation was banned under federal legislation in 1998 through ill-considered parliamentary horse-trading when, apparently, nobody thought it would matter.
This is a strange and illogical position. We are the only G20 nation with a legal ban on nuclear energy as the worlds third-largest exporter of uranium, fuelling nuclear energy globally, we reject it ourselves.
In recent months, researching and filming my Sky News documentary on this energy challenge, I have spoken to a range of experts and environmentalists here and overseas who insist nuclear power is both the green answer and the only answer to the net-zero emissions challenge.
I believe Australia has to have a nuclear energy future, says Barry Brook, professor of environmental sustainability at the University of Tasmania. We are not ever going to get beyond about 50 per cent renewable energy and continue to have the type of energy use in a modern society that we have today, so where is the other 50 per cent going to come from? If it really is going to be zero carbon, then it is going to need to come from nuclear.
Helen Cook is an Australian lawyer who has worked overseas for 14 years specialising in nuclear industry issues for major companies and national governments in the US, Europe and Middle East. Back in Sydney, and a new mum, she sees nuclear as fundamental to her daughters future: If were going to move away from coal, and if we care about climate change, the only technology that we currently have today, which can replace that fossil fuel generation, is nuclear energy.
When asked if net zero is achievable using renewables and storage, nuclear expert Adi Paterson says: I dont believe that it is possible. Paterson trained in South Africa and the UK as a nuclear engineer and was chief executive of Australias Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (which runs Lucas Heights) for 12 years until he left recently.
If we want the future that were talking about, which is a future that is a low-carbon future, that honours the earth that were living in, and honours the future generations who will have to take over from us, we would absolutely have a nuclear future, he says. And of Australias hopes for net zero by 2050 he says; I think without nuclear, its impossible, and I think it just will become too difficult, and we will find out too late.
Brook sees nuclear energy as the global warming silver bullet but understands the political impediments. In my ideal world, wed be doing something already, doing something meaningful, be having bipartisan agreement, wed be looking at contracts, wed be building our first reactors, and wed be making that transition, he says. Every coal-fired power station that was retired would be replaced by a nuclear power station that was zero carbon, that would be an idea.
According to Cook, getting rid of the legislative ban would be an important signal to the public that nuclear energy was not something to be demonised. I also think that probably the prohibitions have created a level of political apathy in this country, where our leaders maybe havent had to engage or have chosen not to engage in this controversial subject of nuclear energy, she says.
The South Australian royal commission into a nuclear industry in 2016 recommended the removal of the legislative ban as a signal to industry that proposals would be considered. Nationals senator and former resources minister Matt Canavan has signalled his intention to force the issue in parliament.
Small modular reactors are expected to dramatically improve the practicality and costs of nuclear power. They loom as the entry point for this country.
Globally, away from the glib lines, alarmist slogans and meaningless pledges of Glasgow, the world needs to spectacularly increase the amount of electricity it generates in coming years to lift billions more people out of poverty in Asia and Africa. And that is before considering the conversion of much of the developed worlds transport to electricity.
More electricity, available everywhere, regardless of the vagaries of wind or sunshine, without carbon emissions this is the energy nirvana we aspire to. But there already is one form of power that meets those criteria, nuclear.
Australias net-zero politicians are either not serious, or too timid to test the reaction.
msg said
10:18 PM Oct 23, 2021
Not one word about disposing of the waste. Fusion or fission.
Mike Harding said
07:31 AM Oct 24, 2021
msg wrote:
Not one word about disposing of the waste. Fusion or fission.
I believe there is little waste from fusion reaction. Certainly I recall poking my head into the tokamac a few days after a run and I haven't grown a second one yet.
There has been much made about a ban on nuclear energy in Australia legislated in the 70's. Now, I may be entirely wrong (it was a long time ago) but I thought, nuclear plants were banned, not so much because of the the plants, but, because there was no confidence in the way the waste was to be disposed of. Not only waste from local plants but deals were also being considered for Australia to be a dumping ground for the rest of the world.
If this is still the case, then "the powers that be" promoting using nuclear plants because it is clean and green, and if there are no new methods of disposing the waste, then maybe its not as green as promoted and we should still reject it on those grounds. Australia is polluted enough without adding to it with something that will be deadly for many many years.
But will happily sell it to other countries that are building coal burning power stations as fast as they can, go figure.
Landy
Australia has no system of taking care of its own nuclear waste, let alone taking it form other countries.
We don't even have a place to store low level waste that comes from hospitals and industrial processes. It is currently stored in basements all over the country. Every smoke detector is technically nuclear waste when its life is up.
Just recently an agreement was reached to build a low level waste facility in SA.
We do have a small nuclear research reactor at Lucas heights. It is decades old and in need of replacement. High level waste from that reactor goes to France for processing and is then returned to Australia, but we still have no long term storage facility for it.
A couple of decades ago I thought nuclear power was the way to go for Australia, but no more. Its time is past. Very expensive, decades to design and build and no "plan" for end of life problems. Solar on the other hand is cheap and if you want some more you can build it next week. The materials are mostly 100% recyclable at life's end.
Cheers,
Peter
-- Edited by Peter_n_Margaret on Thursday 21st of October 2021 12:01:44 AM
www.brightnewworld.org/media/2018/10/18/history-of-australias-nuclear-prohibition-5ceab
Simple answer to the question in Google. "Nuclear power was prohibited in Australia in 1998, horsetraded for the passage of legislation centralising radiation regulation. Public debate at the time, flamed by the anti-nuclear movement, centred on the replacement of the Lucas Heights reactor."
I think nuclear energy is potentially the best solution, but it needs to be fusion, not fission.
-- Edited by dorian on Thursday 21st of October 2021 03:31:38 PM
X2
The major problem with N Fusion is that it is still largely experimental with the first facility in 2025 & perhaps commercially available in 2030.
Perhaps the future lies along the road of commencing the roll out of a minimal number of Fission SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) keeping in mind that even modern Plants come with horrendous cost eg The proposed UK plant has a projected lifetime bill of 37 Billion UK Pounds.
It is suggested that after 60 years of Nuclear experience, modern plants have far greater built in safety, can re use old fuel (with 'fast' reactors producing waste that degrades in <100 years) and they are also perhaps cheaper especially if global demand for them increases.
In any case we need to get our bums into gear after having wasted more than a decade floundering about in the political cess pit.
Just another 20 years, and then another 20 years, and .....
Nuclear power plants are not that green. The concrete used in them emits heaps of CO2 and it costs a heck of a lot of energy to decommission them.
AND they don't often require a decommission either
Well... it is a bit difficult... I worked on JET for a while and we did achieve fusion.
If you know the secret please tell us because a *lot* of **very** smart people have worked on it.
Eventually in one form or another we will embrace nuclear energy, just a matter of time.
This from Chris Kenny in the Weekend Australian.
If were serious about net zero, nuclear energy ban must end
Chris Kenny
The test for those who are eager to sign up to a net-zero by 2050 carbon emissions target is whether they are open to discuss an increased role for nuclear energy. If they rule out nukes rather than agree they must at least be considered in any discussion of a low-emissions energy mix they clearly are more interested in political grandstanding than practical outcomes.
This means that in this country the Australian Labor Party and the Greens are interested in the climate debate primarily for political posturing, and that the Coalition, formally, is unwilling to challenge them although perhaps as many as half of Coalition MPs think that should change.
Pursuing the goal of low-emissions energy without debating the only known source of reliable, emissions-free energy is like framing a budget without discussing taxation.
More than 100 wind farms with close to 3000 wind turbines are spread across our nation after investments totalling about $15bn were effectively underwritten in recent decades by governments renewable energy target yet still they deliver less than 10 per cent of our electricity. Think about the footprint and investment needed to multiply that threefold or close to tenfold and consider also the exacerbation of reliability and price problems, and what you would do when the wind stopped everywhere at once.
One of the reasons Britain has been hit by an electricity supply and price crisis in recent weeks is that its wind farms have been halted by weeks of relative doldrums. True to form, some climate scientists are blaming it on global warming, calling this lack of wind a global stilling.
Large-scale solar might be more predictable but faces the same storage dilemma. Energy experts calculate that if we spent $19bn building more than 200 of those South Australian-style worlds biggest batteries we would store enough electricity to run the national grid for an hour.
The renewable enthusiasts now prominent in both major parties pretend this country can somehow muddle through to net zero with renewables and storage while we retire coal and gas. Snowy Hydro 2.0 will provide one significant storage installation at an outrageous cost; what too few people ask is not whether it is desirable or affordable to develop a renewables-plus-storage model, but whether it is even possible.
Let me save them the trouble it is not. Otherwise it would be happening worldwide. Energy storage through batteries is costly, dirty, and desperately inadequate.
It is no accident that when Boris Johnson this week spoke about British plans for net zero he mentioned big bets on hydrogen, solar and hydro power but assured Brits there would be strong focus on expanding nuclear too for baseload. The world needs energy that is reliable.
As the worlds largest coal and gas exporter, Australia sends enough fuel overseas each year to produce three or four times our own total emissions. But the emissions saved overseas each year by countries using our uranium rather than fossil fuels is enough to cancel out our annual emissions.
Perish the thought we would use uranium ourselves. Yet this is where Australia has found itself, despite a long history with the nuclear industry. Uranium was first mined at Radium Hill, west of Broken Hill, in 1906 and processed in Hunters Hill, Sydney. It was sold overseas mainly for research, including to Marie Curie and Ernest Rutherford.
British nuclear weapons were tested at Maralinga, in outback South Australia, in the 1950s and 1960s, and mining continues in the Northern Territory and SA to this day. In the 1960s and 1970s, serious proposals were pursued at Jervis Bay in NSW and in SA to develop a nuclear reactor for electricity generation but they fell by the wayside, primarily because of an abundance of coal and gas.
The Lucas Heights research and nuclear medicine reactor was established on Sydneys southern outskirts in the 1950s and still operates, with a new reactor commissioned in 2007. Political controversy over the weapons tests and mining ventures was intense during the Cold War, and into the 1980s and 1990s as Labor agreed to allow three uranium mines nationally.
The hangover has seen local governments declare themselves nuclear-free zones, and some state governments ban even uranium exploration. Bizarrely, nuclear energy generation was banned under federal legislation in 1998 through ill-considered parliamentary horse-trading when, apparently, nobody thought it would matter.
This is a strange and illogical position. We are the only G20 nation with a legal ban on nuclear energy as the worlds third-largest exporter of uranium, fuelling nuclear energy globally, we reject it ourselves.
In recent months, researching and filming my Sky News documentary on this energy challenge, I have spoken to a range of experts and environmentalists here and overseas who insist nuclear power is both the green answer and the only answer to the net-zero emissions challenge.
I believe Australia has to have a nuclear energy future, says Barry Brook, professor of environmental sustainability at the University of Tasmania. We are not ever going to get beyond about 50 per cent renewable energy and continue to have the type of energy use in a modern society that we have today, so where is the other 50 per cent going to come from? If it really is going to be zero carbon, then it is going to need to come from nuclear.
Helen Cook is an Australian lawyer who has worked overseas for 14 years specialising in nuclear industry issues for major companies and national governments in the US, Europe and Middle East. Back in Sydney, and a new mum, she sees nuclear as fundamental to her daughters future: If were going to move away from coal, and if we care about climate change, the only technology that we currently have today, which can replace that fossil fuel generation, is nuclear energy.
When asked if net zero is achievable using renewables and storage, nuclear expert Adi Paterson says: I dont believe that it is possible. Paterson trained in South Africa and the UK as a nuclear engineer and was chief executive of Australias Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (which runs Lucas Heights) for 12 years until he left recently.
If we want the future that were talking about, which is a future that is a low-carbon future, that honours the earth that were living in, and honours the future generations who will have to take over from us, we would absolutely have a nuclear future, he says. And of Australias hopes for net zero by 2050 he says; I think without nuclear, its impossible, and I think it just will become too difficult, and we will find out too late.
Brook sees nuclear energy as the global warming silver bullet but understands the political impediments. In my ideal world, wed be doing something already, doing something meaningful, be having bipartisan agreement, wed be looking at contracts, wed be building our first reactors, and wed be making that transition, he says. Every coal-fired power station that was retired would be replaced by a nuclear power station that was zero carbon, that would be an idea.
According to Cook, getting rid of the legislative ban would be an important signal to the public that nuclear energy was not something to be demonised. I also think that probably the prohibitions have created a level of political apathy in this country, where our leaders maybe havent had to engage or have chosen not to engage in this controversial subject of nuclear energy, she says.
The South Australian royal commission into a nuclear industry in 2016 recommended the removal of the legislative ban as a signal to industry that proposals would be considered. Nationals senator and former resources minister Matt Canavan has signalled his intention to force the issue in parliament.
Small modular reactors are expected to dramatically improve the practicality and costs of nuclear power. They loom as the entry point for this country.
Globally, away from the glib lines, alarmist slogans and meaningless pledges of Glasgow, the world needs to spectacularly increase the amount of electricity it generates in coming years to lift billions more people out of poverty in Asia and Africa. And that is before considering the conversion of much of the developed worlds transport to electricity.
More electricity, available everywhere, regardless of the vagaries of wind or sunshine, without carbon emissions this is the energy nirvana we aspire to. But there already is one form of power that meets those criteria, nuclear.
Australias net-zero politicians are either not serious, or too timid to test the reaction.
I believe there is little waste from fusion reaction. Certainly I recall poking my head into the tokamac a few days after a run and I haven't grown a second one yet.