I'm not sure of the accuracy or currency of this, but I just read that nuclear power in the US consumes 3% of the country's fresh water, so it's obviously an issue.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/styles2/
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/water-nuclear
Nuclear Energy
Re: Nuclear Energy
The coalition's nuclear policy is at odds with the major science institutions and the corporate giants of the energy sector.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/aemo-locks- ... en-faster/The energy industry is unanimous in pointing out how crazy that plan is, in terms of cost, emissions, and reliability. And the ISP underlines the sheer scale of what needs to be built in the next two decades to replace and cope with a big increase in demand, driven by economic growth, green industries and electrification of homes, businesses and cars.
I can feel it
-
stevebrooks
- Posts: 707
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2023 11:38 am
Re: Nuclear Energy
Ah Dutton, lying again!
Now regardless of which is actually better, this is a straight out lie. Straight costing clearly indicates this, but even clearer, increasing the number of wind turbines decreases the cost of electricity to the public, because apart from turbine replacement the power is essentially free. Increasing the number of nuclear power stations does the opposite because it increases the cost of waste removal and storage, and a running nuclear power station has static costs that don't drop if you increase the number of them, and increasing costs in water usage, waste disposal and eventual decommissioning costs.
Actually, it's not, the math has been done on this, and even with the replacement if turbines the long term cost of wind power is far less than the long term cost of nuclear, but funnily no link are provided in the new article that support Dutton's claim, it's a just, "he says" thing.promising the ambitious project will be more efficient than replacing wind turbines “every 25 years”.
Now regardless of which is actually better, this is a straight out lie. Straight costing clearly indicates this, but even clearer, increasing the number of wind turbines decreases the cost of electricity to the public, because apart from turbine replacement the power is essentially free. Increasing the number of nuclear power stations does the opposite because it increases the cost of waste removal and storage, and a running nuclear power station has static costs that don't drop if you increase the number of them, and increasing costs in water usage, waste disposal and eventual decommissioning costs.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/envi ... 6c484fc542GenCost found that a grid with 90 per cent wind and solar power (by 2030) would generate electricity at $70 to $100 a megawatt hour.
Coal generation would cost $85 to $135 a megawatt hour.
Small modular reactors would generate electricity at $210 to $350 a megawatt hour.