Nuclear Power For Australia?

[IFocus]

Take 6 equally sized generating units, run them all at two thirds capacity, and in practice you've got adequate spinning reserve. Noting that's an example only, the actual maths gets more complicated but as a concept that's workable.

In my day spinning reserve was the common practice in all North West diesel stations, still didn't stop me blacking most of them out.

 

[JohnDe]

The article fails to address issues around nuclear that pertain to Australia.

The vast majority of reactors under construction are in China (25) and India (7) where there are massive base loads, the tech is in house, they have nuclear weapons (money has already been spent for fuel) and so fuel technology and availability are spin offs.

Though the article does mention the increase investment from US and UK and multi-national businesses -

Last year, 22 countries, including our AUKUS partners the US and UK, pledged to triple global nuclear energy output by 2050. Google has announced a deal with Kairos Power to deploy several small modular reactors (SMRs) to power AI data centres, with the first reactor to be in place within six years; Amazon announced a $US500m ($750m) deal for SMRs; Microsoft has underwritten the reopening of a reactor at the infamous Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania; and Oracle is building a data centre requiring a gigawatt of power supplied by three small reactors.​

 

[SirRumpole]

Though the article does mention the increase investment from US and UK and multi-national businesses -

Last year, 22 countries, including our AUKUS partners the US and UK, pledged to triple global nuclear energy output by 2050. Google has announced a deal with Kairos Power to deploy several small modular reactors (SMRs) to power AI data centres, with the first reactor to be in place within six years; Amazon announced a $US500m ($750m) deal for SMRs; Microsoft has underwritten the reopening of a reactor at the infamous Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania; and Oracle is building a data centre requiring a gigawatt of power supplied by three small reactors.​

6 years for countries that already have nuclear infrastructure means 20+ for us, after the other countries get what they want.

 

[JohnDe]

Why build Nuclear Power Stations, when we can create jobs by clearing the land and laying down solar panels?

Doesn't that look pretty -

View attachment 185346

What is wrong with people, don't they understand that by clearing the land and installing wind and solar farms we're saving the environment and creating jobs at the same time?

“Scientists have been talking to government about this for a long time, at least 10 years, because we could see what would happen — the footprint of renewables on the Australian continent and other parts of the world is substantial.​

Scientists sound alarm over renewables impact on nature

Ardent supporters of action on climate change are warning of another looming crisis: damage to sensitive ecosystems to make way for renewable energy. They say it’s time for a rethink.

Ecological experts are joining calls for a temporary halt to new large-scale renewables in crucial nature hotspots, amid growing concern over the destruction of the environment to make way for green energy projects.

Former Queensland government principal botanist Jeanette Kemp said there would be “considerable backlash’’ if the general public was fully aware of the extent of land clearing and fragmentation of valuable habitat to make way for some wind farms in Queensland.

“Because of the great speed at which renewable developments are going ahead we are paying a very high price in terms of the degradation of rugged, remote and ecologically important ranges,’’ she said.

Former Queensland chief scientist, Professor Hugh Possingham, agreed that some developments should be temporarily suspended while detailed regional biodiversity mapping is undertaken to show areas suitable for renewables development, and no-go zones which should never be considered.

Rather than hinder the rollout, this analysis would ultimately speed it up, he said, because developers would have more certainty and fewer planning roadblocks. Experts at the University of Melbourne plan to release detailed biodiversity analysis this year.

Communities in renewable energy zones in NSW and Victoria have long voiced concerns about quality agricultural land being used for the rush of large-scale solar, wind, battery and transmission projects but there is growing alarm at the damage to sensitive landscapes and areas close to national parks, world heritage areas, protected wetlands and migratory flight paths.

The Wet Tropics Management Authority has issued concerns about the cumulative scale of proposed developments that would involve clearing of relatively intact land near the world heritage area. The National Parks Association of NSW has fought the planned construction of high voltage power lines in Kosciuszko National Park as part of the Snowy 2.0 project.

‘Maybe with so many people on the more conservative side of politics and the left wing side of politics all saying this is out of control, we’ll get something done.’​

Another group, Rainforest Reserves Australia, has warned that the most significant threat to remnant habitats along the Great Dividing Range - home to vulnerable species such as koalas and greater gliders — comes from poorly-placed renewable developments. “We have magnificent mountains that should not be fragmented and smashed for wind farms,’’ said co-founder Steve Nowakowski, a vocal opponent of some projects.

Environmentalist Steven Nowakowski near the proposed site of the Chalumbin Wind Farm which was withdrawn this year after the Federal Government indicated it would refuse the application due to unacceptable impacts on the environment. Picture: Steven Nowakowski

When built in the wrong locations, Possingham said solar farms posed a risk to native vegetation, wind turbines threatened birds and bats, and the roads, powerlines, turbines and new mines for critical minerals were increasing habitat loss, compounding existing pressures from climate change, land clearing and natural disasters.

Possingham, co-chief councillor at the Biodiversity Council and a professor of mathematics and ecology at the University of Queensland, said the rollout, while necessary, had proceeded without enough thought and planning

“Scientists have been talking to government about this for a long time, at least 10 years, because we could see what would happen — the footprint of renewables on the Australian continent and other parts of the world is substantial.

“We urged them repeatedly to plan, just plan. But for some reason governments refused to put in place the processes by which you could actually tell people where renewable energy infrastructure could be placed for a win win outcome, to generate energy and not cause loss of biodiversity.

“Maybe with so many people on the more conservative side of politics and the left wing side of politics all saying this is out of control, we’ll get something done.”

Like Kemp, Possingham is a supporter of renewable energy and the need to tackle climate change but they say it cannot be at the expense of the environment. It’s an approach echoed by former Greens leader Bob Brown who has warned that the impacts of some wind farms on critical habitat outweigh the benefits and could contribute to the extinction crisis.

Clearing for the Kaban Wind Farm in far north Queensland. Picture: Steven Nowakowski

Kemp said conservation groups, traditionally reluctant to acknowledge that not all renewable developments were green for fear of delaying climate change action, were becoming more vocal as bulldozers head into high quality tracts of native vegetation to cut roads and bases for wind turbine foundations.

“Maybe 150 hectares disappear here, 200 hectares disappear there. It’s small relative to land clearing in New South Wales and Queensland but you end up getting death by a thousand cuts,’’ Possingham said.

Concerns centre around north and central Queensland, which has a huge pipeline of projects, some of which involve clearing koala, greater glider and threatened bird habitat. Conservationists were heartened when the Wooroora Station wind farm proposal next to the Wet Tropics world heritage area was withdrawn earlier this year after the federal government indicated it would refuse it on environmental grounds. It was a rare case.

Many other projects have cleared planning hurdles with environmental controls and limits on how much habitat can be cleared. The Lotus Creek wind farm, now owned by the Queensland Government, was knocked back by the previous Federal coalition government but later approved by Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek despite potential significant impacts on the habitat of koalas, greater gliders and squatter pigeons.

Squadron Energy’s Clarke Creek wind farm 150km north-west of Rockhampton was approved on the basis that no more than 1513 ha of habitat suitable for koalas is cleared. It has pledged to “ensure no animal or threatened species is harmed as a result of project activity.”

Clarke Creek Wind Farm, north-west of Rockhampton on the southern end of the Connors Range. Picture: Steven Nowakowksi

The Gawara Baya Wind Farm, 65km southwest of Ingham, will involve the removal of 598 hectares of Sharman’s rock wallaby habitat, 614 hectares of koala habitat and 581 hectares of northern greater glider habitat.

Wind farm developers pledge to minimise clearing, conduct ongoing surveys and relocate wildlife where necessary. They employ ecologists and other experts and have detailed environmental management plans. However opponents say the cumulative impacts of a string of wind farms following transmission lines down the Great Dividing Range need to be assessed.

Kemp said environment groups should band together to demand a review of the locations of all Queensland renewable proposals occurring in remnant vegetation. “Whilst this is happening we need to halt the progress of all proposals which have not completed clearing,’’ she said.

“This is a huge state and we have many areas with already fragmented and cleared vegetation. This is where we should be building renewable developments. I’m not against most of the wind farms, it’s just those in really highly intact areas that must be reconsidered.’’

These comments come as a team at the University of Melbourne prepare to release analysis that will show zones where renewables could be rolled out on degraded and cleared land.

Brendan Wintle, director of the University of Melbourne Biodiversity Institute and a lead councillor at the Biodiversity Council, said areas further west had high energy generation potential and posed fewer problems.

“The general story is that the further west you go, the lower the impact on nature and high productivity agricultural land, and the lower the general conflict,’’ he said

Notwithstanding challenges around transmission infrastructure in more remote places, the analysis, to be released in about two months’ time, will show this to be a viable medium-term option, he said.

“I’m confident enough on our existing analysis that we can prove that it’s possible to meet full domestic demand, and also, potentially the energy export industry in a way that doesn’t impact on nature values and major agriculture, and that’s actually going to be faster and cause less community conflict.

“And basically the difference in cost is a rounding error, effectively, in the 5pc range.’’

Transmission giant Transgrid is also looking at future remote inland renewable energy zones as sources of additional renewable power in the mid-2030s.

Wintle said he did not support a temporary halt to approved developments but said a rethink was urgently needed. “We recognise that a rapid transition to renewable energy is absolutely critical but we need to carefully plan where to put it.

“The first order of thing is to not destroy native vegetation to build wind and solar farms, because that’s really counterproductive. We need more vegetation.’’

The scientific community is attempting to take the lead in the face of ongoing uncertainty from government: Labor’s long awaited overhaul of national environmental laws has been further delayed and the states are working on different plans to identify land planning issues around the new energy rollout.

Earlier this year the Victorian government announced plans for new guidelines to protect biodiversity and research into the threat of wind turbines to bird and bat species. NSW is looking to implement a new energy impact policy later this year. Queensland’s direction is unclear under the new Liberal National coalition government, which has pledged to repeal the state’s renewable energy target and dump a pumped hydro project.

Former energy infrastructure commissioner Andrew Dyer said in a major report late last year that land use planning was urgently needed. “Mapping of this information will assist with better identification of highly preferred locations for new projects, as well as provide confirmation regarding ‘no-go’ or inappropriate zones. Planning authorities, developers and other stakeholders should carefully review this information and associated maps before commencing any prospecting or development activity at a site,’’ his report said.

Lack of clarity over biodiversity risks has also frustrated the renewables industry. “A lack of policy direction to assess and mitigate risks to biodiversity has contributed to significant delays in project assessment, particularly for wind farms,’’ the Clean Energy Council said in response to Victoria’s planned guidelines.

“Wind farms do have some environmental impacts but these are well down the lists or threats to any species or ecosystem, when compared to… feral cat and fox predation and wetland degradation, among others.’’

 

[Smurf1976]

What is wrong with people, don't they understand that by clearing the land and installing wind and solar farms we're saving the environment and creating jobs at the same time?

As I've said many times, including on this forum, "All power pollutes".

Because it does. There's no such thing as energy that doesn't impact something somehow. What we get to choose is the nature of that impact and where it occurs.

From there it's a relatively familiar debate in that it applies to a great many things not just energy:

1. Some will focus on sustainability, as distinct from impact per se, as the most important criteria. They'll accept an impact as long as it's sustainable.

2. Some will accept any impact that they can't see and which doesn't personally involve them. That is, classic NIMBY but it's just fine if it's done out of sight.

3. Some will focus on human health as a key criteria, others will say no humans are just another species so don't treat them differently.

4. Others will see the question as ideological, in particular in the context of the potential for conflict.

5. Some will focus on the present, others will focus on the long term future, in terms of the above.

Those are all subjective in that whilst it's very possible to quantify them as such, it's a matter of opinion as to which is more important. It's a value judgement, it's not a situation where someone can do some calculations and prove that one criteria is more important than another.

Personally my own key criteria are sustainability, avoidance of species extinction, avoidance of conflict, and no major known human health impacts. As for the scenery, personally I don't consider that a priority given it's inevitable something has to be sacrificed. But if scenery is considered a priority, well looking at land use electrical infrastructure's a very long way down the list of impacts there. It's an order of magnitude smaller than agriculture for example, then towns, cities, roads, airports and so on all with huge impacts that've trashed the natural scenery - there's nothing pretty about a city skyline, farm or highway. Not to mention open cut mining.

I mean seriously, have a look at Australia on Google Earth and what do you see? It's not electrical infrastructure that's lead to the widespread demolition of nature. Take a look between Melbourne and Adelaide for example, the vast majority of the land has been cleared for agriculture whereas you'll have trouble even finding the wind and solar farms unless you already know exactly where they are. Meanwhile transmission lines are even harder to find.

Others will of course hold different views on what the priorities are and neither them nor myself can prove either to be wrong or right, since it's a values issue.

 

[Smurf1976]

Adding to the previous that I'm not against farming, but I will spot inconsistencies.

If land clearing for wind farms is a problem then land clearing for agriculture is a few orders of magnitude greater problem being the point.

Suffice to say I don't expect to hear the Coalition objecting to land used by agriculture anytime soon.

 

[JohnDe]

Adding to the previous that I'm not against farming, but I will spot inconsistencies.

If land clearing for wind farms is a problem then land clearing for agriculture is a few orders of magnitude greater problem being the point.

Suffice to say I don't expect to hear the Coalition objecting to land used by agriculture anytime soon.

Yeah, but governments put a stop to all that with strict legislation

In 1990, first-time clearing accounted for 74% of the total area cleared, while by 2009 the proportion had fallen to 33%. This reflects the progressive introduction of land clearing restrictions by state governments from the early 1990s onwards.​

It's much easier, and more lucrative, to build wind and solar farms. And if done correctly the government help fund it. Look at all the mechanical beauty and jobs.

 

[Smurf1976]

Yeah, but governments put a stop to all that with strict legislation

In 1990, first-time clearing accounted for 74% of the total area cleared, while by 2009 the proportion had fallen to 33%. This reflects the progressive introduction of land clearing restrictions by state governments from the early 1990s onwards.

Commenting purely on the politics not any science, as with anything the test of someone's position and the integrity of it is whether they maintain that view when it's not in their interests to do so.

If the Coalition opposes any further land being cleared for agriculture or mining then, whilst I disagree with the significance of that as an issue, It would at least be a consistent policy approach presumably based on a belief of that being the right thing to do.

But if they argue that land clearing for renewables is bad, but land clearing for open cut mining or agriculture is just fine, well that looks awfully like a political game being played.

 

[JohnDe]

Commenting purely on the politics not any science, as with anything the test of someone's position and the integrity of it is whether they maintain that view when it's not in their interests to do so.

If the Coalition opposes any further land being cleared for agriculture or mining then, whilst I disagree with the significance of that as an issue, It would at least be a consistent policy approach presumably based on a belief of that being the right thing to do.

But if they argue that land clearing for renewables is bad, but land clearing for open cut mining or agriculture is just fine, well that looks awfully like a political game being played.

I don’t know about your agricultural examples, I haven’t seen any clearing. And haven’t heard any complaints from the Liberals or National Party.

It’s those dam greenies that are making the fuss, they’d rather we live like cave people than develop the land.

Imagine the job creation with all the land preparation for solar and wind farms. Plus all the new walking trails.

Impacts of large-scale renewables — Rainforest Reserves Australia

www.rainforestreserves.org.au

 

[JohnDe]

Oh, look what is going ahead, more scenery and job creation.

The Federal Court has dealt the government an embarrassing defeat, after concluding Energy Minister Chris Bowen wrongfully interpreted legislation when its rejected an offshore wind application from a developer backed by one of Japan’s largest companies.​

Look at those beauties.

Flotation executive director for Australia Carolyn Saunders said the decision was welcomed, and the “ball was now in the court of the minister”.

“It provides useful clarity and assists in helping Australia meet its energy goals and support energy transition,” Ms Saunders told The Australian.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen. Picture: Martin Ollman

A spokeswoman for Mr Bowen said the ruling illustrated the nascent nature of the legislation and the industry.

“Establishing Australia’s offshore wind industry is a complex but critical step in decarbonising our energy market,” she said.

“Government and industry alike have an interest in regulatory certainty and that is what this process in the Federal Court is about.

“The minister will review the judgment and consider next steps in relation to Seadragon’s application.”

 

[sptrawler]

I wonder if Trump will continue with the Democrats plan.

Biden admin sets new target to triple US nuclear capacity from 2020 levels | Fox News

US will aim to reach 200 gigawatts of net nuclear capacity by 2050

www.foxnews.com

 

[JohnDe]

the UK & US are combining all their nuclear power technlogy resources to improve sustainable carbon free energy, they even invited Australia. However, we have no need to use our own uranium while we change our landscape with sexy modern solar panels and wind farms.

In Baku the UK and US signed an agreement designed “to speed up the deployment of cutting-edge nuclear technology to help decarbonise industry and boost energy security”. The decision is an extension of the pro-nuclear agreement signed by 31 nations last year at COP28 to triple nuclear energy capacity globally by 2050 and aims to have new technology available by 2030.​

Chris Bowen rejects UK-US nuclear energy pact invite

The Albanese government has rebuffed an invitation from allies the United Kingdom and the United States to join a global movement to speed up the spread of civilian nuclear energy plants to cut carbon emissions and provide more secure power to industry.

Overnight in Baku at the COP29 summit the British government announced that the Australian government was “expected” to join its UK and US “allies” in signing an agreement to speed up the development of civilian nuclear energy and decarbonise industry from March next year.

In Baku the UK and US signed an agreement designed “to speed up the deployment of cutting-edge nuclear technology to help decarbonise industry and boost energy security”.

UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and US Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk agreed to a plan to “help pool together billions of pounds worth of nuclear research and development – including the world’s leading academic institutions and nuclear innovators”.

The decision is an extension of the pro-nuclear agreement signed by 31 nations last year at COP28 to triple nuclear energy capacity globally by 2050 and aims to have new technology available by 2030.

Australia’s Climate Change Minister, Chris Bowen, is in Baku for the climate change meeting.

Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Mr Miliband said the UK was “reversing a legacy of no nuclear being delivered and moving forward with its advanced nuclear reactor program and Great British Nuclear’s small modular reactor competition”.

“Nuclear will play a vital role in our clean energy future. That is why we are working closely with our allies to unleash the potential of cutting-edge nuclear technology,” Mr Miliband said.

“Advanced nuclear technology will help decarbonise industry by providing low-carbon heat and power, supporting new jobs and investment.

The new agreement, the Generation IV International Forum will no longer include Russia and will come into force from March 1, 2025.

The UK and the US expected Australia to sign the agreement as well as “willing parties” including Canada, France, Japan, Republic of Korea, Republic of South Africa, China and Switzerland.

But, through a statement from his office, Mr Bowen totally rejected the UK invitation.

“Australia is not signing this agreement as we do not have a nuclear energy industry. Nuclear power is outlawed in Australia. We will continue to work closely with our international partners to reach Net Zero,” the spokesman said.

“Our international partners understand that Australia’s abundance of renewable energy resources makes nuclear power, including nuclear power through small modular reactors, an unviable option for inclusion in our energy mix for decarbonisation efforts,” the statement said.

Mr Bowen argues that Australia is much sunnier than the UK and has advantages with solar power that the UK does not.

“Put simply, London has only 1,633 hours of sunshine hours in an average year. By comparison, Australia’s least sunny capital city is Melbourne with 2,362, while our sunniest capital city is Perth has 3,229.

“We will remain as observers to this agreement to continue to support our scientists in other nuclear research fields,” the statement said.

Acting Prime Minister, Richard Marles, told parliament that nuclear power was the most expensive form of energy in the world and most nations were working on renewable energy. Picture: Kym Smith

The UK-US agreement came as the Labor Government launched a ferocious attack on the Coalition’s nuclear policy claiming its as too expensive, risky and would take too long to develop.

Acting Prime Minister, Richard Marles, told parliament that nuclear power was the most expensive form of energy in the world and most nations were working on renewable energy.

Environment Minister, Tanya Plibersek, said the delay in developing nuclear power wold mean millions more tonnes of carbon emissions would go into the atmosphere.

But the UK Energy Minister said the forum “aims to support information-sharing on advanced nuclear technologies and make them available for use in industry by 2030”.

The UK-US agreement says “new technologies such as advanced modular reactors can help decarbonise heavy industry such as aviation fuel, hydrogen or advanced steel production, by providing low-carbon heat and power”.

“They are also smaller and can be made in factories, making them quicker and cheaper to build,” it says.

 

[JohnDe]

The GIF that keeps on giving.

We have been an active member of the world’s leading small-scale nuclear research group but not, it seems, anymore. Chris Bowen has effectively said he will pull Australia out of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) just as it moves from research to deployment phase and our major allies pour billions of dollars into research and development.​

Energy Minister Chris Bowen pulling us out of nuclear just as everyone jumps in

The Albanese government is sabotaging Australia’s longstanding and deep involvement in next-generation nuclear research, just as the world is getting serious about the emissions-free technology.

We have been an active member of the world’s leading small-scale nuclear research group but not, it seems, anymore.

Chris Bowen has effectively said he will pull Australia out of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) just as it moves from research to deployment phase and our major allies pour billions of dollars into research and development.

The GIF was established in 2001 as a co-operative international endeavour seeking to test the feasibility and performance of fourth-generation nuclear systems, and to make them available for industrial deployment by 2030. It brings together 13 countries – Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Japan, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States – as well as the European Atomic Energy Community, representing the 27 EU members.

The Australian flag is displayed on the cover of the GIF’s 2023 annual report. Our involvement is detailed in a full page. Our contribution involves research into high-temperature reactor projects, along with contributing research in support of molten salt reactor projects.

The annual report said Australia “continues to be a committed and co-operative member of the Generation IV International Forum for the joint development of the next generation of nuclear technology, which is vital for the future of the nuclear energy industry and for the sustainable development of the planet”.

It says that while Australian government policy continues to prohibit the civilian use of nuclear energy in the country, “it continues to recognise that nuclear energy is a mature technology used to deliver reliable electricity in many countries, with zero greenhouse-gas emissions at the point of generation and low life-cycle emissions”.

It says the AUKUS security partnership with the UK and US will enable Australia to leverage nuclear-powered submarine expertise.

“Announcements by the Australian government in early 2023 indicated continuing support for the program, including the formation of a dedicated agency to manage Australia’s efforts,” the report said.

The GIF said a focus for Australia in its role as a member of the forum continued to be “the mutual benefits reaped from international co-operation in programs that underpin the next generation of nuclear technology”.

The existing GIF framework agreement expires on February 28 next year and the policy group agreed in 2023 to develop a new framework agreement for those parties mutually willing to continue collaborations. Russia is being excluded from the new group.

Bowen’s comments on Tuesday make it clear we are getting out of the nuclear business at a time when our major allies are preparing to double down.

 

[JohnDe]

Nuclear power is receiving wider and greater acceptanc

"At Meta, we believe nuclear energy will play a pivotal role in the transition to a cleaner, more reliable, and diversified electric grid," the company said in a release.​

Meta seeks nuclear power developers for reactors to start in early 2030s

Meta (META.O), opens new tab said on Tuesday it is seeking proposals from nuclear power developers to help meet its artificial intelligence and environment goals, becoming the latest big tech company to take interest in atomic power amid an expected boom in electricity demand.

The company wants to add 1 to 4 gigawatts of new U.S. nuclear generation capacity starting in the early 2030s, it said in a release. A typical U.S. nuclear plant has a capacity of about 1 gigawatt.

"At Meta, we believe nuclear energy will play a pivotal role in the transition to a cleaner, more reliable, and diversified electric grid," the company said in a release.

U.S. data center power use is expected to roughly triple between 2023 and 2030 and will require about 47 gigawatts of new generation capacity, according to Goldman Sachs estimates.

But it will be tough to swiftly meet soaring power demand with nuclear reactors, as companies face an overburdened U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, potential uranium fuel supply obstacles and local opposition.

Microsoft (MSFT.O), opens new tab and Constellation Energy (CEG.O), opens new tab announced a deal in September to restart a unit at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in what would be the first-ever restart for a data center.

That announcement followed a similar agreement in March in which Amazon.com (AMZN.O), opens new tab, purchased a nuclear-powered data center from Talen Energy (TLN.O), opens new tab.

Meta said it is seeking developers with expertise in community engagement, development and permitting, and would consider either small modular reactors, an emerging part of the business that is not yet commercial, or larger nuclear reactors similar to today's fleet of U.S. nuclear plants.

Meta said it will take submissions from developers that want to take part in the request for proposals until Jan. 3, 2025.

The company said it was using the request-for-proposal process because, compared to renewable energy projects like solar and wind, nuclear is more capital-intensive, takes longer to develop, and is subject to more regulatory requirements.

"An RFP process will allow us to approach these projects thoroughly and thoughtfully with these considerations in mind," it said.

 

[Smurf1976]

Nuclear power is receiving wider and greater acceptanc

Nobody would sensibly doubt that it has a role to play and will increase in absolute terms.

At the same time however, nobody credible really expects it to overtake hydro, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone at all who expects it to over the total of hydro, wind, solar and geothermal.

As an example of that, ExxonMobil (who aren't exactly a bunch of greenies) puts nuclear at 6% of world primary energy supply in 2050. The IEA puts it at 7% and the (somewhat more "green") IPCC puts it at 10%. Noting that's of energy supply not specifically electricity.

Nuclear has a role to play but we're not about to run everything with it (noting to be fair that nobody's actually proposing that, the idea is just to use some).

 

[sptrawler]

Nobody would sensibly doubt that it has a role to play and will increase in absolute terms.


Nuclear has a role to play but we're not about to run everything with it (noting to be fair that nobody's actually proposing that, the idea is just to use some).

That is the real issue, no country would put nuclear in if they had other options, but if the World is going to zero fossil fuel, many countries will have no other option.

Some nuclear will be required untill something better comes along, but as you say, it will be the minimum amount they can get away with.

 

[JohnDe]

Nobody would sensibly doubt that it has a role to play and will increase in absolute terms.

At the same time however, nobody credible really expects it to overtake hydro, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone at all who expects it to over the total of hydro, wind, solar and geothermal.

As an example of that, ExxonMobil (who aren't exactly a bunch of greenies) puts nuclear at 6% of world primary energy supply in 2050. The IEA puts it at 7% and the (somewhat more "green") IPCC puts it at 10%. Noting that's of energy supply not specifically electricity.

Nuclear has a role to play but we're not about to run everything with it (noting to be fair that nobody's actually proposing that, the idea is just to use some).

Reading the article, the main of it is that nuclear development and build is a slow process. Meta believes that nuclear "will play a pivotal role". Meta is putting their money where their mouth is -

Meta said it is seeking developers with expertise in community engagement, development and permitting, and would consider either small modular reactors, an emerging part of the business that is not yet commercial, or larger nuclear reactors similar to today's fleet of U.S. nuclear plants.​

​

Meta said it will take submissions from developers that want to take part in the request for proposals until Jan. 3, 2025.​

​

The company said it was using the request-for-proposal process because, compared to renewable energy projects like solar and wind, nuclear is more capital-intensive, takes longer to develop, and is subject to more regulatory requirements.​

​

"An RFP process will allow us to approach these projects thoroughly and thoughtfully with these considerations in mind," it said.​

 

[Sean K]

This has been a bold move by the Coalition, but it seems like it's gathering some momentum.

Will it win the next election?

Maybe not.

But, once the facts and hurt about the RE with batteries only plan come to fruition in the next few years, it's our only way to energy security with RE, gas and nuclear.

The time for nuclear energy in Australia has come.

It is a bold and visionary policy – one that moves beyond political short-termism – and will set this country up for generations.

The fact is we are on an energy policy trainwreck under this government.

In SA, they are restarting mothballed diesel generators. In Qld, the hydro projects have blown out by billions.

In Victoria, they have literally banned gas from homes while relying on extending the life of coal-fired power stations, and in NSW, we were warned last week not to use dishwashers and washing machines because of the fragility of the grid on a warm day.

We are paying some of the highest electricity prices in the world under federal Labor’s renewables-only policy.

This is not what we should expect in a first-world country.

More than 400 nuclear reactors operate worldwide today. More than 30 countries use nuclear power. Dozens more are looking to join the growing league of nuclear-powered nations. And yet, ignoring reality and embracing their renewables-only fantasy, Mr Albanese and Mr Bowen are positioning Australia as a pariah.

Only a delusional government believes that you can run a full-time and functioning economy using part-time and unreliable power.

 

[SirRumpole]

This has been a bold move by the Coalition, but it seems like it's gathering some momentum.

Will it win the next election?

Maybe not.

But, once the facts and hurt about the RE with batteries only plan come to fruition in the next few years, it's our only way to energy security with RE, gas and nuclear.

View attachment 189038

The time for nuclear energy in Australia has come.

It is a bold and visionary policy – one that moves beyond political short-termism – and will set this country up for generations.

The fact is we are on an energy policy trainwreck under this government.

In SA, they are restarting mothballed diesel generators. In Qld, the hydro projects have blown out by billions.

In Victoria, they have literally banned gas from homes while relying on extending the life of coal-fired power stations, and in NSW, we were warned last week not to use dishwashers and washing machines because of the fragility of the grid on a warm day.

We are paying some of the highest electricity prices in the world under federal Labor’s renewables-only policy.

This is not what we should expect in a first-world country.

More than 400 nuclear reactors operate worldwide today. More than 30 countries use nuclear power. Dozens more are looking to join the growing league of nuclear-powered nations. And yet, ignoring reality and embracing their renewables-only fantasy, Mr Albanese and Mr Bowen are positioning Australia as a pariah.

Only a delusional government believes that you can run a full-time and functioning economy using part-time and unreliable power.

I actually think that if worse comes to worse and the renewable conversion stalls, then it makes much more sense to build more coal stations as they have provided cheap power for decades and we have a lot of coal reserves.

Plus the fact that we know how to build coal stations and the supporting infrastructure is already there. No need for nuclear waste disposal facilities and complex legislation.

Our Pacific neighbors won't like it, but giving them a bit more aid might shut them up.

 

[Sean K]

I actually think that if worse comes to worse and the renewable conversion stalls, then it makes much more sense to build more coal stations as they have provided cheap power for decades and we have a lot of coal reserves.

Plus the fact that we know how to build coal stations and the supporting infrastructure is already there. No need for nuclear waste disposal facilities and complex legislation.

Our Pacific neighbors won't like it, but giving them a bit more aid might shut them up.

Yes, worse case energy security situation means we will rebuild and turn everything back on. Much like what Germany is looking at now. We're about 10 years behind.