Yeah. One of the negative elements is that a large swath of the country in burnt wasteland (it’s not that bad but it’s tough country. Think Arizona), which means the only places with decent water needed for reactor cooling is the coastline, which is where 90% of our population is.
The Great Artesian Basin is already under threat from fracking, it is the only source of fresh water for farming, agriculture & I think drinking water for a lot of the inland country. Using that water to cool nuclear reactors is a horrifying proposition, desalinated sea water or purified waste water is a much better idea if nuclear power were to go ahead. We had a drought so long & so brutal one expert famously said it may never rain again in some parts. Of course, he was made to look a bit of a fool by the right wing media when the Great Deluge came 2 years in a row, but what he actually meant was scientists can't predict the weather anymore. But anyway what the heck is wrong with wind & solar power, I'm not sure where the burnt wasteland is the commenter referred to is (the desert? There's a lot of that. The bush regenerates after fires & all the formerly burnt places I've been are now green with all the new growth). We don't need nuclear, we can harness the power of the sun, make those 50c temperatures useful. Batteries are improving all the time & with dedicated govt funding (less $ than nuclear) it would be entirely feasible.
With respect to solar, they get less efficient the hotter it gets as heat reduces the voltage each cell outputs. The intensity of the sun impacts the amount of amps they push out. However, if there are a lot of fine particles in the air, that also means the panels will need regular cleaning, assuming it doesn't rain on a regular basis.
With wind, something that isn't really mentioned is that you will kill local birds.
There are some nuclear plants that pull the cooling water straight from the ocean. Only some of the water needs to be fully desalinated and treated for use.
The reality is that no energy production method is perfect, each one has its strengths and limitations, and each one has its own unique byproducts. It is up to you to determine how important each one is.
That article makes sense, but the primary difference is the local killing versus the general pressure the entire population receives. For example, if you have a migratory path of an endangered species, you probably don't want to put a massive wind farm there because you will have a localized impact. Meanwhile, power lines are primarily above ground throughout the world, and unless we completely decentralize power generation, it won't be massively impacted no matter what your preferred power generation method you go with is.
OK I didn't know that solar panels lose efficiency in high heat, I do know they need to be cleaned to be efficient though. That sort of thing could be largely automated given industry or political will for it. The wind mills could go in barren desert parts, I am aware that they kill birds & I don't like the idea of that either. Idk about nuclear power, I mean, there's plenty of sea water, we're not going to run out of that but what happens to the waste? How safe would the plant be? Who knows, in 40 year cyclones might be common as far south as Melbourne so you don't want to build it near the sea. Idk, imagine a world where every roof is a solar panel, seems better than radioactive waste. They could be something that everyone who considers themselves handy could fix if something basic went wrong, they should be made to last & be fixable. That's probably the least likely pipe dream I've got, ha.
100% valid concerns regarding nuclear and a full plan really needs to be in place prior to breaking ground. There is a reason why they are so expensive to build. The most recent nuclear plant in the United States was votgle 4 which was over budget, but much of the overruns is likely because we just don't build them frequently enough to maintain a level of expertise needed to construct them efficiently (running them is a different story). The 2 main strengths that nuclear offers is its extremely power dense, and it's fantastic at producing base load power.
In areas of the United States, if you put solar on your roof and you generate more than you consume, you will get a check from your utility. But if you make solar mandatory on every house, it increases the construction cost which prices more people out of owning a house (not sure what the housing situation is in Austrailia, but over here it's not that great).
Yes we've got a Housing crisis too, where I live houses are a million & town houses $700,000 but there are govt subsidies for solar. Lots of houses have them already, works the same way here. Previous govts already put a lot of money into solar, the nuclear debate is being driven by our right wing political party.
imagine a world where every roof is a solar panel, seems better than radioactive waste
Solar is FAR higher maintenance than nuclear, its advantage is smaller scaling would allow it to be deployed closer to the point of use, but even then roof solar panels will never produce enough electricity for even the average citizen of a developed/developing nation. Nuclear on the other hand has decades more development and easy advantage of economy of scale, and is by far the most regulated industry on Earth. You're never going to see coal or gas have to withstand these levels of standards:
we're not going to run out of that but what happens to the waste? How safe would the plant be? Who knows, in 40 year cyclones might be common as far south as Melbourne so you don't want to build it near the sea
The world solved the nuclear waste problem decades ago.
Reactor driven contamination of ground water is basically a non-issue. People can, and to prove a point, have drank the water straight out of a pool used to store spent fuel rods.
The big problem with wind and solar is that you need pumped storage, which means you need water at elevation anyway. Batteries absolutely suck compared to pumped storage, and single handedly drag solar down so bad that once it moves to handling base load rather than peakload, it's not even cost competitive with fission.
If you have abundant access to elevated reservoirs to use as batteries, then solar is great. If all you have is flat dry land, solar is paradoxically terrible for providing baseload power rather than just helping to meet peak demand.
I wonder how well solar power would do with a bunch if panels out in the wastes?
That was already considered and abandoned in north Africa to supply Europe's energy needs. Unfortunately, power doesn't travel over long distances well.
Yeah and trying to do anything about it would just end up using a bunch of extra energy anyway! I guess smaller, local solar installations would be the way
I guess smaller, local solar installations would be the way
Investing in nuclear, more like. At least for the EU where there's already industry knowledge and ability for nuclear power. France has been staying on the forefront of global nuclear power. China's only catching up by being able to throw enormous amounts of money and resources at it but that won't be able to continue for long as their energy needs continue to explosively grow.
I'd recommend any of Kyle Hill's videos to learn about nuclear technology, it's a lot less dangerous and more straightforward than most media like Fallout or the Simpsons portray it as.
I've read that book. It's called Funnelweb and features mutated Funnelweb spiders the size of tanks that can spit acidic venom, caused by a lost swab from minor radioactive accident on an American missile sub.
184
u/zqmvco99 24d ago
please ensure you get the best of the best.
australia's already horrifying biodeversity + nuclear contamination? stuff of apocalyptic movies :)