Have you ever had a song that just sticks in your head? An earworm as they say in the land of labels, a song that keeps on going around and around, driving you demented. I had this the other day, my subconscious playing nasty tricks on me.
The song was Let the sunshine in, one that I remember singing in the late Sixties. Or was it the Seventies? I think it came out with that controversial musical Hair, an anti-war, anti-establishment piece with an infamous nudity scene. The song was all a bit hippyish but had a catchy tune. It had references to an age of Aquarius (whatever that meant) and the need for positive change.
Well, we bloody well need some positive change all these decades later. The reality of renewable energy and sunshine is taking front and centre in my thinking. And I am getting annoyed, very annoyed. Why, you ask?
Today I heard a politician rabbit on about building nuclear power stations to tide us over in the interim phase between old-fashioned carbon emitting technology – think dirty coal-fired power stations and new solar and wind farms, generating all the electricity we need.
It was typical politician speak, sound grabs, blame heavily cast on the present government, though goodness knows we’ve had a few of each variety in the past 20 years.
We have had years and years to contemplate this need for alternative energy sources and it strikes me that we have been incredibly slow, stupid and downright dumb in how we have approached this looming crisis.
Many years ago, in the mid-1970s, I spent a few weeks in the Middle East and I was amazed at their innovative approach to energy. On every building I saw there were solar hot water services, capturing for free what nature was providing. Granted they looked jerry-built and not aesthetically pleasing but they did a good job and ensured that at least a portion of the need for electricity was covered by the sun.
I came back home and waited and waited for our forward-thinking politicians to join the club. We have abundant sun, so why did it take 40 years at least to play catch up?
We now have one of the biggest uptakes of solar panels on our roofs, thanks to private citizens, but we seem to have not joined the dots in making sure the rest of the infrastructure handles this load.
And as for nuclear power – the idea the politician pulled out of a hat – the consensus is that they take years and years to build, are not popular with the electorate (who wants one in their backyard?) and then leave us with a pact with the devil to try to store the radioactive waste material.
My scepticism rises about our ability to not have enormous budget blowouts (no infrastructure seems to meet its budget estimate), let alone having any of these plants built within a reasonable time frame.
Climate change is upon us. There will be more severe storms, drought and hotter days to test the resolve of people and governments. Water will become a scarce commodity in some parts of the world and other parts will be inundated by rising sea levels. There is more than a sense of urgency to all of this.
Will future generations shake their collective heads in disbelief and disappointment that we squandered our opportunities and were so slow in our need to save the planet?
What are your thoughts on the current power situation? Have our politicians squandered opportunities? Or is nuclear the future? Let us know in the comments section below.
Also read: Podcast: Too many Aussies ignoring valuable energy rebates
As a resident of country Victoria and a retired farmer, it concerns me that huge solar farms and wind farms, with their associated infrastructure, are taking over prime food production land. I can see that in the future we will not only run out of power if we get an extended period of calm cloudy weather, we will not be able to maintain our food production to feed our ever increasing population, let alone maintain our export markets. Our present Governments seem to completely ignore this issue and suffer from tunnel vision and just focus on renewable energy.
I travel around Victoria and am yet to see the solar farms you speak of on prime agricultural land. Are you in a different state of Victoria than the rest of us? Maybe you’re just a member of the Sky ‘news’ cult.
There are 17 solar farms either completed, under construction, or in the final planning phase in Victoria at the moment. As virtually all of Victoria which is not a National Park is good farming land, it is pretty obvious what is happening. I can take you to at least 4 sites within 250km of my home, all on prime farming land.
Or maybe you’re part of the cult with your head in the sand
Suggest you haven’t travelled very far …. Particularly to western Victoria, the Mallee, just to name two areas.
In reply to Nomad1946, I live in North Western Victoria, between Mildura and Ballarat.
Just a question Robyn you don’t have tunnel vision do you?
Just one question Robyn do you have tunnel vision?
Cannot personally speak for rural Victoria but in FNQ they are rapeing huge sections of the rain forest and hinterland with no apparent consequences for the environment and placing these wind farms in high visibility locations., all in the name of environmental advancement.
It’s absolute hypocrisy.. Oh and talk about cost “ blow outs” just look at that fool Bowen and the economic destruction he is creating while leaving a financial legacy for all of us tax payers , all in the name of saving the planet.
By all means let’s do our bit for the world environment, however at less than 4% contribution to GE.. maybe we should be approaching this a smarter way.
On nuclear, be careful with the “not in my back yard argument..”I would much rather live near a modern day Nuclear Plant than a wind farm or solar farm. in fact those who only support solar and wind should accept the reverse argument and let’s put one in an iner city location, after all if we are so passionate about this form of energy then be prepared to walk the talk… Final comment on nuclear.. India has just announced that they will be building 15 new nuclear plants over the next 12 years, add that to the growing list of other nations adopting as me and the argument starts to become somewhat diminished and embarrassing.
Absolutely spot on nuclear will solve our power struggles and will also allow Ev s to flourish because they won’t be struggling to get power from the grid. Renewables will leave will leave us in a terrible finance place in the future. I’m an ICE vehicle person by the way.
Maybe you are not aware of some of the major effects of Climate Change, one of which is erratic weather which will make it impossible to to grow crops anyway. As far as cloudy days are concerned (the increase in them lately is directly related to the warming of the oceans, another effect of Climate Change) the advent of batteries to store solar will address that issue to a large extent. If we took some of that money the Coalition is proposing for developing expensive toxic nuclear and put it into renewables instead, there would be no need for nuclear. Why not stick with cheaper and safer renewables instead of an energy source that still has not solved the inevitable dangerous waste it produces? How many of those advocating nuclear would volunteer to take the waste products themselves?
Nuclear energy is the way of the future right across the globe, with small modular reactors and enormous advances in safety technology. Even the advancements in AI technology are having a massive drain on current energy sources. And wind and solar are proving far too expensive to build and maintain in any advantageous quantities. People don’t want reactors in their backyards, but they don’t want wind turbines or banks of solar panels either.
whenangelscry@optusnet.com.au, can you tell us the company name which produces these compact nuclear packages and where they have been installed and what output and installed cost?
The list below is an example , however GE and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are also involved . Oh also not sure who manufactures the SNRs for the world’s Nuclear Subs, guess that may be classified.
However you can bet none of the list are involved in the “smoke pipe dream “Blue or Green Hydrogen which has quietly disappeared from the conversation.
Small reactors for near-term deployment – development well advanced
Name Capacity Developer
Integral MSR 192 MWe Terrestrial Energy, Canada
Seaborg CMSR 100 MWe Seaborg, Denmark
Hermes prototype 35 MWt Kairos, USA
RITM-200M 50 MWe OKBM, Russia
The idea that “renewables” are the sole answer and the only answer to solve Australia’s energy, is naive to the extreme. Part of the solution? Maybe, but NOT the total answer.
Nuclear too should be part of the solution. It provides clean and reliable base load power and has done so in many other countries for decades. Yes, nuclear comes with risks. But every technology comes with risks. The main risk with “Renewables” is reliability (availability, intermittence) other risks are renewability – solar panels and wind turbines have relatively short life times – about 20 years, battery backups are prone to thermal runaway causing disastrous fires, granted probabilities are low but with the large numbers of backup batteries needed, the frequency of fires will be quite high. Other issues affecting “renewables” are disposability and the need to take over large amounts of useful agricultural lands. One could go on, but I’ll stop here.
Nuclear is the only way to go. Solar is OK for a house as it doesn’t take up acres and acres of productive land. They also don’t have to be built near any cities like these old coal generators. If we don’t go Nuclear then in years to come there won’t be any coal/gas power generators able to generate enough power for the rising population.
I entirely agree with you ronloby. Why has Nuclear Power not been the priority for our base power? Some folk need to get Nuclear Bombs off their minds. Nuclear Power is NOT the same thing. Nuclear Reactors use tiny quantities of Uranium. We would dig radio-active Uranium out the ground (which we already do for export) and then after it is used the radio active waste goes back in the ground (where it came from in the first place) What is the problem with that ?
You do know nuclear reactor requires billions of filtered water per year? Nah, probably not. So stick a reactor in Morwell, where’s the water? We do live on the most arid continent in the world?
So build infrastructure to transport billions of litres of water to old coal powered power stations?
And the waste? And not even a mention of the cost which is between 3 & 5 times that of renewables. Time to build? Not ten years. That’s political propaganda. At least 20 years.
So nuclear still sounds like a solid proposition?
Sure does, bring it on the sooner the better, heard of desalination plants? forgot that this expensive solar rubbish & windmills need replacing 20-25 years ? most of it not recyclable. We had the opportunity to set up a radio active waste disposal system for the world in SA ; billions of dollars lost because some pesky dreamtime serpent got in the way!
Yep. Also Australia has more spare land than almost any country on earth. Those talking about prime farming land are mostly talking about some of the most marginal farming land in the country while at the same time ignoring the real prime land that has been built upon for residential housing, ie those very productive market gardens that used to be the SE of Melbourne for eg. Perhaps also we need to stabilise the population as opposed to mass immigration which is only done to increase GDP figures (while lowering GDP per person)
So you think that because people choose to live in an area that is a nice location so they don’t have to put in large infrastrcture to live a pleasant life they should be able to take large chunchs of land for panel and w/mills, much more than the 1/4 acre blocks.
A hysterical column written by some-one who doesn’t understand, or just follows sheep-like the Green’s hyperbole, the basics of how we need stable power base to ensure we have continuous power with the renewables. Read up on 4th generation nuclear reactors, as this will be the way forward.
In the meantime you need to ask the Greens and others why they outright reject nuclear power, which is CO2 emissions free, while still demanding an end to gas or coal power plants that will still be needed for quite some time into the future.
Battery storage energy systems are not a feasible solution for replacing power plants either due to the excessive overheads and replacement costs associated with them, not to mention their disposal issues. Plus we cannot get enough of the metals required worldwide to do this, nor can we get enough copper to produce the new transmission lines that would be required.
The other myth is that this is free energy. The renewable energy industry would not exist without subsidies of trillions of dollars spent by governments world wide. That is, it is ultimately paid for by taxpayers.
Additionally you have just regurgitated Tim Flannery’s wild predictions some years ago on climate change, yet Tim recently bought himself a beach front house. And I think we have seen water in dams and rivers since he made those rants.
Correction: Tim Flannery bought himself a waterfront house at Coba Point on the Hawkesbury.
Yes, as an entomologist, Flannery was an excellent choice by Gillard as a so called climate expert.
I’m sure that Bowen has not got a clue about the true cost for his renewable green dream. It will take an awful lot of expensive cabling and infrastructure to transmit the energy from the on shore and off shore wind farms. Similarly the thousands of kilometers of overhead transmission lines, pylons etc won’t come cheap either. Maybe he thinks that it will all be done with mirrors.
I think Bowen knows exactly how his green dream will cost it reminds me of the old Elvis Prestly song I’m going to follow that dream. He is just so arrogant in his answers that surely even his left/green followers must have some idea that its not always truth comes out of his mouth.
4th Generation Nuclear Reactors and Power Stations.
Mmm, maybe, but as they are only in their research and development stage, and there is no firm date for them being available for commercial use, and the estimates for that varies between 2 & 3 Decades !!
Therefore you are talking about them becoming available sometime between 2035-40 !!
It appears that you really have not done your in depth homework
Fair call with regards to time-frames, but I did say moving forward these should be the answer.
However we should have had nuclear power decades ago in Australia. Some countries in Europe are now re-commissioning coal and/or nuclear power plants, as they cannot rely on renewables or cheap Russian gas.
What the government is proposing is ideal driven, whilst ignoring the reality or viability of what they are legislating. What nett zero doesn’t take into account is that we do not have enough of the metals required worldwide available now to build all the renewable infrastructure. The discovery process time-frame added to the time it takes to get a mine into production and then processed is decades, not years. And the cost will be massive.
If we seriously want to get to nett zero by 2050, nuclear is the only way forward, with far less environmental damage than the renewable energy pathway.
Robyn Caffel has no idea what she is talking about. First the new nuclear power plants are smaller and do not take as long as the old type to build. The longest time is waiting for governments to wake up and find suitable sites for one or possibly two in Australia. We are one of the only economic countries in the world, who are not using nuclear, going back to open up previous plants, like Norway (Who have found that solar and wind do not supply sufficient energy for industry) or planning on new nuclear plants.
Why is it fine for us to have nuclear submarines and not nuclear power plants- we have had years of experience with nuclear in Sydney, generating all of our medical nuclear needs.
In relation to cost, have you seen the estimated costs of building solar farms and erecting thousands of pylons and connecting thousands of kilometres of transmission wires. It goes into Trillions over many years. Solar panels and wind mills only;y last a maximum or 10 years before replacement significant parts need to be replaced.
We have also seen recently in Victoria, what weather systems can do to pylons and the wires- treat them like fragile toys. One strong cyclone or similar storm could rip up thousands of hectares of solar farms too. Solar and windmills will never generate enough electrical power for heavy industry
The only question to ask those advocating for nuclear power is to ask them would they like to live next to a nuclear power station and a nuclear waste facility if the answer is yes then that is the site for them, if the answer is no then we don’t need nuclear power.
If that is your standard then you may want to use the same test for “Renewables”. Hands up those who want a noisy wind turbine farm or maybe a quieter solar farm next door to where they live?
As for nuclear plants, they should replace existing coal powered stations. If people could put up with those, then they will put up with nuclear power stations too.
Current Status: As of now, Germany has six nuclear power reactors in operation, and the country is in the process of phasing out its nuclear power program23. These reactors play a significant role in the country’s energy mix, but their operation is gradually winding down.
Self-explanatory!
sorry, they are starting them up again after a renewable fiasco is under performaing
The thing is ‘human error’ don’t care how small and techno advanced nuclear energy is, something we cannot control is ‘human error’ I am not an activist, but I would do so if govts were aiming to build a nuclear power station near where I live. I am sure we will come up with something else in the tech advancements future than a nuclear option to deform nature.
https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2018/04/29/woman-who-paints-chernobyls-insects/
https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2018/04/29/woman-who-paints-chernobyls-insects/
If you don’t live next to a coal powered station then you don’t have to worry about a nuclear power plant being built next to you because if they will be built, where coal power stations are located now. That is one of their main advantages. The ability to plug into the existing grid.
If you DO live next to a coal power station, why haven’t you worried about the polluted air they caused you to breathe in? And if you tell us that did not worry you, then I guess that in time you will learn not to worry about the small probability that nuclear power stations may cause you harm.
So you would have no qualms of being surrounded by wind farms, Bob Browns isn’t.
https://www.interaliamag.org/articles/cornelia-hesse-honegger-lying-on-a-daily-basis/
Definitely yes to Nuclear. Yes I would live with one next to me. No problem. No to renewables which have to be ‘renewed’ at huge expense to us every 20 years or so. Ruining the beautiful countryside too. I feel so sorry for the farmers. Such an invasion for them on their own property.
I have heard much debate about this topic such that I decided to see what the CSIRO had to say on the subject. These are the key points, and if they’re right, then we need to find other ways.:
Nuclear power does not currently provide an economically competitive solution in Australia.
Lead author of GenCost, Paul Graham, says updated costs for a key project in the US have been found to be very high.
The costs for small modular reactors (SMRs) could improve over time, but will be too late to make a significant contribution to achieving net zero emissions.
I refer to “Nuclear power does not currently provide an economically competitive solution in Australia.” from you about what the CSIRO had to say about nuclear.
The cost of nuclear would be far less than the amount we have already spent and what we will need to spend in the short term future.
The CSIRO has now included more than $30 billion of new transmission lines and projects to provide back up power when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining – such as the $12 billion Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro dam. I doubt very much that $30 billion would be anywhere near enough.
What it doesn’t include is the billions already spent on wind farms, solar panel farms and any battery farms associated with renewables by the government in the form of subsidies. All with life spans of anything from 15 years to 30 years and then they need to be decommissioned and recycled and replaced at enormous cost again.
And this might be an uncomfortable read for you: –
https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/energy/copper-needed-for-net-zero-emissions/
So we are to left with solar panels only last 20-25 years so in about 10 years time we will see mountains of disused panels that cannot be recycled, wind turbine blades occupying productive farming land as they cannot be recycled ie plus 6000 blades in Germany alone. Lithium batteries more energy intensive to recycle than to manufacture.
Meanwhile Australia wants to shut down all it’s low pressure coal fired power stations efficiency about 25%whilst the rest of the world has 1800 new coal fired high pressure power stations with an efficiency of about 45% in the pipeline and over 400 nuclear power stations also in the pipeline of existing proven safe design. New designs, the modular reactors can be built into existing infrastructure built around the existing coal fired power stations. No doubt the governments will want to scrap them to retrieve some valuable metals. Copper being one. Admit that there have been three major incidents one caused by operator errors, one caused by poor design and operational procedures and finally one that was wrecked by a combination of and earthquake and massive tidal wave.
I have looked at this issue. Nuclear takes too long, is dangerous, and too expensive. The newest nuclear power station is a joint venture between France, EDG, a Chinese company and is in Hinkley Point in the UK. Commenced about 2012, it’s still not online, completion due 2025, now expected to be 2030/2031. The UK Government have a fixed price contract to buy the power. It’s about $240 per KW vs $60 for renewables.
Remember key points here- France, China, UK all have experience with nuclear power. We do not.
Doing research, I was shocked to discover, that some countries including France, have supplies of Potassium Iodide for residents in close proximity to a nuclear plant France has it in case of a radiation leak for anyone living within twenty kilometres.
People have short memories. In my life time, which will overlap with many here, there have been three very major incidents.
1979 Three Mile Island in the USA, 1986 Chernobyl which is still evacuated, 2011 Fukushima.
The Hinkley Point station in the UK is up to £46 Billion in cost.
The CSIRO has stated it’s not economically feasible in Australia. We do not have the mass market size.
I have seen comments here, from individuals claiming wind and solar are taking up good agricultural land. The availability of good land will diminish unless climate change is addressed. Weather events are becoming more extreme. Land previously available is increasingly experiencing more drought, and we are seeing crops destroyed by floods.
I think too of the French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal famous for his wager on the existence of God.
He argued that if God existed, and you believed- no problem and you would be rewarded , if you believed in God and he didn’t exist no problem. If God existed and you didn’t believe, risk of possible damnation. The conclusion – better to take the safest bet.
With climate change, if you believe it’s happening, and it is, you can take steps to reduce it,if you believe and you act accordingly, we are better off with cleaner air and water, even if it’s not real.
If it is happening, and we don’t believe or act, then potentially we are facing severe consequences of inaction.
Renewables also include pumped hydro. As a comparison the French province of Quebec is running on about 95% renewable energy sources including hydro.
Peter, I’d like to address several of your points but firstly you say “is dangerous”, I’d like to know how you make this judgment?
You reference Chernobyl, yes, there were deaths of workers inside the power plant and workers directly tasked with fighting the fires, but there were no validated deaths of people outside the plant. There is an area that remains an exclusion zone, but while a number of people continued to live within that area and are still alive and well (balanced for their now advanced age) and the entire ecosystem is flourishing with no disruption to the natural processes.
Three Mile Island caused no deaths and no release of radiation into the environment. It was a scary situation created by politics and the media. In evaluating the full situation, there was never any danger to anyone outside the immediate reactor. It worked as intended and was not a danger to the health of the general public.
Fukushima Daiichi has caused no deaths from radiation and the exclusion zone around the power plants remain undamaged by anything from the nuclear function. The release of contaminated water is below any identified danger level and is fully dissipated to below normal back ground radiation levels very quickly.
In over 60 years of large scale power generation by nuclear power stations, it has shown itself to be the safest form of power generation overall. That is both directly and indirectly.
Compared to all other forms of large scale power supply, it is consistently clean, quiet, reliable and compact with a relatively benign impact on the environment and environs.
The waste is a scary monster that is brought by people who do not look at the full picture. Physically it may be heavy, but by volume what comes out of a medium sized plant in a 50 year period would fit in the back of a typical dual cab ute. But in reality, it doesn’t have to be waste with a concern on disposal.
Under pressure from officials from the old USSR, many countries signed Non-Proliferation Agreements where they agreed to not reprocess the exhausted fuel rods and pellets. This was based on the argument that the depleted Uranium could be reprocessed into Plutonium and then used as a feed stock for atomic weapons. France did not sign that Agreement and has been recycling their depleted fuels for reuse for over 50 years.
This is a change that needs to be made. Of course then the demand for Uranium from the Australian mines may be scaled back, but then so would the demand for a safe storage location. In reality the vastness of inland Australia is such that it could be just dumped in many places and would never be encountered by anyone other than someone actually looking for it. As I said, it is physically small in size and could be very easily and safely simply dropped down anyone of thousands of abandoned mine shafts in many areas.
Takes too long. The average build time was less than 9 years prior to 2000. What drags it out now is “lawfare” and compliance with great numbers of safety and construction requirements.
The old fear of being next door to a nuclear power station is bereft of reason. People have been living within tens of kilometres of coal burning power stations for many decades and as they have cleaned up, they are less and less noticed for their flue emissions. There are no health hot spots in the towns that are within ten or less kilometres of the existing power stations.
When people say too expensive they are excluding the actual real cost of the distribution network required to link in the plethora of wind and solar farms spread throughout the rural areas. Every one of these high tension collector power lines requires continual maintenance and replacement of wires and insulators. The time that has been estimated to get this Grid in place goes well beyond the anticipated build schedule that a network of sufficient nuclear power stations.
Factor in the cost that the replacement of the thousands of wind turbines (operational and contractual life is limited to 20 years for many) and tens of thousands of solar panels which will degrade below viable output or damaged in storms. With no recycling processes for the discarded blades and turbines and solar panels. One medium sized nuclear power station can, in it’s life, provide more reliable power than over 2,000 medium sized wind turbines.
Another very important aspect is that a typical nuclear power station delivers ~>90% of it’s plated output for 24 hours a day for up to 60 years.
Wind delivers ~<33% of plated capacity at essentially unpredictable times. Solar delivers ~<25% of plated capacity though at least we know when that delivery will be.
The costs of either chemical storage (batteries) or kinetic energy (pumped hydro) are too high for the Government to discuss but certainly destroy the myth of cheap renewals.
In actual fact, the chase of a "Net Zero" is a fools errand as Australia will make no difference either way to either any real or predicted changes in global climate.
In absolute terms, Australia should be continuing with the reliable coal and gas power generation until a true revolution in energy production emerges.
Peter remove all the subsities and your bias and you would have to admit that nuclear in the way to go if not why are all the large producets of nuclear power France, USA and others tripling there nuclear output. As for dagerous you obviously have not looked into the stability of the new nuclear reactors like comparing the model T Ford and a modern day Volvo’
Diane, I can recognise your fears of Climate Change and I can answer all of them, but you have made up your mind and no rational discussion will change your mind.
A very important fact is that the changers refuse to consider is that there has not been an increase in the either the number of or severity of natural weather events in either Australia or around the planet that can be attributed to human driven climate influences.
Subjectively there appear to be if you rely on the general media and press releases from vested interests. If the frame of reference is 50 years, the numbers can be managed to appear to be very dire, but when one goes back over 200 years, it could be said “you ain’t seen nothing yet”. But these predictions of a catastrophic future have been around for many hundreds of years, it is just that now they are orchestrated and co-ordinated.
There is no “Climate Emergency” or “Climate Crises”. There is an hysteria, but it is a fear of something that will not harm people in the way that they are frightened of.
A very simple fact on Carbon Dioxide production and absorption is that the naturally occurring flora of this country can, and does, absorb more than we produce. So shutting down our coal and gas power stations will make no difference in that respect. Nor divesting ourselves of petrol and diesel powered vehicles of all sizes and categories. (An interesting aspect of the drive to Just Stop Oil activists is that they ignore that the clean electric world with wind and solar power supplies requires plastics that are derived from crude oil. The wind turbines require the grease lubrication that is made from crude oil. In fact so much in every day life require products made from crude oil that the hundreds of refineries will continue to crack and split crude for centuries to come. And with every barrel of crude refined, there is diesel and gasoline coming from it. Where to with that?)
Australians have been harvesting solar energy from their roof tops for well over 50 years with hot water being a significant industry at times. Now it is just so much more convenient and cost effective and reliable to let the power that comes in the wires give us all the hot water that we need regardless of whether the sun has been shining or not.
From the 1950’s through to the 1980’s there was an organised campaign to demonise nuclear power with the protestors waving the banners “Campaign Against Nuclear Energy”/”Campaign Against Nuclear Power” paraded in the Labour Day marches to instill concern. These campaigns were funded by the USSR to hinder the acceptance of reliable and potentially cheap high quality high quantity power generation from nuclear power stations. Many of the fears are very tenuous and can be answered and quelled with an understanding of the nature of the machine.
In absolute terms, no, we should not need nuclear power. But that can only be if we expand the reliable power generation burning our plentiful resources of coal and gas.
Gas is a clean energy source and with the scrubbers and particulate filters in the flue of a coal burning power station there is very little in the way of unpleasantness that is emitted by such a power plant.
The full cost of going to a renewable power grid are many times that of including equivalent power sourcing from nuclear power stations. It’s what such people as Chris Bowen is not telling you about the actual cost of the real bits and pieces needed to get that that is scary.