If there was any large ecological disaster that negatively affected our renewable output, such as any significant ash clouds from a supervolcano or something else horrendous, I feel like with our current set up we would have no choice but to go back to coal.
I think this scenario is extreme and very unlikely. If there were ash clouds big and opaque enough to block out enough light to make an entire grid (eg the size of the NEM) infeasible then you would have other catastrophic issues. Farming would fail across the affected areas from a lack of sunlight.
I would rather nuclear energy be funded and researched as a viable alternative, even if just for the knowledge of it. We never know what applications it could have in the future.
Don’t sweat it, that’s exactly what’s already happening with the research reactor at ANSTO. The linked article is about nuclear energy, not nuclear research.
If we had transitioned to nuclear decades ago, we wouldn’t be so reliant on coal now. But for the last however many decades the argument has been, ‘well nuclear may have made sense ten years ago but it’s too late now’. This same argument gets stated all the time.
Oh the ecological disaster argument is definitely extremely unlikely, I agree. I just think it’s interesting to think about.
I swear I’ve seen the argument of ,‘maybe then, but not now’ more times than I can count, but I could be wrong. It might have been one or two things that just annoyed me from the short sightedness of it.
The issue with pure research, as opposed to implementing some practical energy production, is the lack of practical knowledge gained. If we don’t need to use nuclear energy it’s no big deal to have no practical knowledge in the country, but it is still a shortfall.
I also don’t like how one of the main points in the article is about the economics of it. I think some things are worth doing despite there being a loss, however I am not as educated in the matter as those in CSIRO.
Like I said though, renewables definitely are the future of at least the bulk of our energy production. If we can provide power to the nation without needing as many big holes in the ground or potential environmental issues I am all for it.
The issue with pure research, as opposed to implementing some practical energy production, is the lack of practical knowledge gained. If we don’t need to use nuclear energy it’s no big deal to have no practical knowledge in the country, but it is still a shortfall.
Ah my apologies. Yes you mean research into energy reactors. There is some overlap but definitely not 100%.
I swear I’ve seen the argument of ,‘maybe then, but not now’ more times than I can count, but I could be wrong. It might have been one or two things that just annoyed me from the short sightedness of it.
Nuclear reactors don’t just provide cumulative benefit, they also provide cumulative detriment. Eg storage and disposal of nuclear waste. Choosing or not choosing to build and use reactors isn’t a black and white short sighted or long sighted decision, it provides a mixture of both. Weighing up the value vs costs is a complex task for people at any point in time (now or in the past), rife with guesses and uncertainly.
I also don’t like how one of the main points in the article is about the economics of it. I think some things are worth doing despite there being a loss,
Definitely. To steal your words: looking at only profitability economics is “short sighted”. That’s why public transport shouldn’t be treated as something to create a profit (any more than roads or other parts of government), it provides a lot more benefit overall than can be considered by only looking at its local cashflow.
however I am not as educated in the matter as those in CSIRO.
Beware of the limitations of this article. It only discusses some topics, concluding that nuclear would find it “difficult to compete”, which means they’re thinking only of running it as private companies on something like the NEM. There are other options (eg totally government run, at a loss).
Interestingly I don’t see them discussing what would happen after & if we built one one (assuming it took decades to complete). Would its benefit of energy security be great, or would it be completely redundant compared to battery technologies in decades to come? Sadly that requires too much guessing, which is probably why they didn’t go there. “Should we build it just in case” is probably a productive argument to consider.
I think this scenario is extreme and very unlikely. If there were ash clouds big and opaque enough to block out enough light to make an entire grid (eg the size of the NEM) infeasible then you would have other catastrophic issues. Farming would fail across the affected areas from a lack of sunlight.
Don’t sweat it, that’s exactly what’s already happening with the research reactor at ANSTO. The linked article is about nuclear energy, not nuclear research.
I have not heard anyone making that argument.
Oh the ecological disaster argument is definitely extremely unlikely, I agree. I just think it’s interesting to think about.
I swear I’ve seen the argument of ,‘maybe then, but not now’ more times than I can count, but I could be wrong. It might have been one or two things that just annoyed me from the short sightedness of it.
The issue with pure research, as opposed to implementing some practical energy production, is the lack of practical knowledge gained. If we don’t need to use nuclear energy it’s no big deal to have no practical knowledge in the country, but it is still a shortfall.
I also don’t like how one of the main points in the article is about the economics of it. I think some things are worth doing despite there being a loss, however I am not as educated in the matter as those in CSIRO.
Like I said though, renewables definitely are the future of at least the bulk of our energy production. If we can provide power to the nation without needing as many big holes in the ground or potential environmental issues I am all for it.
Ah my apologies. Yes you mean research into energy reactors. There is some overlap but definitely not 100%.
Nuclear reactors don’t just provide cumulative benefit, they also provide cumulative detriment. Eg storage and disposal of nuclear waste. Choosing or not choosing to build and use reactors isn’t a black and white short sighted or long sighted decision, it provides a mixture of both. Weighing up the value vs costs is a complex task for people at any point in time (now or in the past), rife with guesses and uncertainly.
Definitely. To steal your words: looking at only profitability economics is “short sighted”. That’s why public transport shouldn’t be treated as something to create a profit (any more than roads or other parts of government), it provides a lot more benefit overall than can be considered by only looking at its local cashflow.
Beware of the limitations of this article. It only discusses some topics, concluding that nuclear would find it “difficult to compete”, which means they’re thinking only of running it as private companies on something like the NEM. There are other options (eg totally government run, at a loss).
Interestingly I don’t see them discussing what would happen after & if we built one one (assuming it took decades to complete). Would its benefit of energy security be great, or would it be completely redundant compared to battery technologies in decades to come? Sadly that requires too much guessing, which is probably why they didn’t go there. “Should we build it just in case” is probably a productive argument to consider.