Here in Australia, trying to develop a nuclear generation system ab initio would take far too long to be useful, failing to replace our ageing coal generators in time, cost far too much and be spurious in a country with such vast land, sunshine and wind. It would also work poorly alongside domestic rooftop solar (we lead the world here). So the current proposal to go with 7 reactors (which would only provide about 15 percent of our energy needs anyway) being put forward by the opposition Liveral/National Party coalition is a very bad idea.
However, for much of Europe and places like Japan it will almost certainly be necessary.
The US is somewhere in the middle: you don't really NEED it but, as you already have an industry in operation (from memory supplying a bit less than 20 percent of your energy) it probably makes sense to continue - though, even there I'd still be focusing future effort on firmed solar and wind. Apart from anything else, you get more bang for your buck and quicker emissions reduction!
Thank you! I try to present all perspectives so readers can understand the pros and cons and decide which outweighs the other on any particular subject.
Great discussion! I have always thought nuclear is the way to go with the 3rd/4th generation reactors but you counter points make such good food for thought. The solar and wind may be more susceptible to the larger weather related events we could see in the future. I guess I hope we can develop fusion tech now!
Sensible article - thanks.
Here in Australia, trying to develop a nuclear generation system ab initio would take far too long to be useful, failing to replace our ageing coal generators in time, cost far too much and be spurious in a country with such vast land, sunshine and wind. It would also work poorly alongside domestic rooftop solar (we lead the world here). So the current proposal to go with 7 reactors (which would only provide about 15 percent of our energy needs anyway) being put forward by the opposition Liveral/National Party coalition is a very bad idea.
However, for much of Europe and places like Japan it will almost certainly be necessary.
The US is somewhere in the middle: you don't really NEED it but, as you already have an industry in operation (from memory supplying a bit less than 20 percent of your energy) it probably makes sense to continue - though, even there I'd still be focusing future effort on firmed solar and wind. Apart from anything else, you get more bang for your buck and quicker emissions reduction!
As you described, the main issue is that solar and wind are cheaper. I also wrote about this here a while back: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-nuclear-energy-the-answer
Exceptionally good description of nuclear power …
Thank you! I try to present all perspectives so readers can understand the pros and cons and decide which outweighs the other on any particular subject.
Great discussion! I have always thought nuclear is the way to go with the 3rd/4th generation reactors but you counter points make such good food for thought. The solar and wind may be more susceptible to the larger weather related events we could see in the future. I guess I hope we can develop fusion tech now!
Good overview Tanner.