First views to federal inquiry give tick to nuclear power, The pro-nuclear power camp is slightly ahead in the first batch of views presented to the federal inquiry. Nuclear backers lead charge in new probe Chris Russell, The Advertiser, August 23, 2019
Nuclear power can operate safely and Australia should pursue the technology, a slight majority of initial submissions to the Federal Government’s inquiry into the issue recommend.
However, nearly as many submissions urge against nuclear power, saying it is dangerous and uneconomic.
“There is no business case for nuclear in Australia,” University of Adelaide Professor Derek Abbott argues.
“From an engineering viewpoint, the modern grid in fact needs energy sources that can rapidly respond to changing demand.
“(It) … would be a poor investment in a technology that will be largely redundant in the modern grid.”
Fellow South Australian Denys Smith, a retired analytical chemist, says that having plentiful power would support desalinating water, a hydrogen industry, mineral processing and manufacturing.
“Involve the public in the nuclear power debate as SA did during the royal commission in 2016,” he suggests.
“Information and facts change attitudes.”
The two SA submissions are among the first 17 to be published by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, which is holding an inquiry into The Prerequisites for Nuclear Energy in Australia.
Nine submissions were in favour and seven against, with one recommending a focus on thorium rather than uranium-fuelled reactors.
The inquiry, which was established this month on instruction from federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor is open for submissions until September 16.
It will then hold hearings and request further evidence.
In his submission, Notre Dame University Professor Keith Thompson tells the inquiry nuclear power could assist Australia to fulfil an “altruistic obligation to the world to develop its agricultural potential”.
In contrast, Richard Finlay-Jones, from EcoEnviro consultants, says nuclear will not solve price and reliability issues and that “Australia has such rich renewable energy resources that it has the potential to generate power for all of southeast Asia”.
The first submissions are from individuals, with organisations likely to lodge comprehensive documents nearer to the closing date.
The inquiry must take regard of SA’s 2016 Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle – which found generation was not commercially viable for SA alone but should be considered nationally – and the 2006 Switkowski review.
Mr Taylor has asked the committee to report by the end of the year.
August 26, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Labor urges more action to protect the Amazon, SBS, Labor is urging the Morrison government to do all it can to encourage Brazil to protect the Amazon as international leaders discuss the issue at the G7 summit. In a joint statement, Labor’s foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong and climate change spokesman Mark Butler said the rainforest fires are increasingly occurring at an alarming rate.
“The Amazon has often been described as the world’s lungs. Its protection matters to the whole international community,” they said.
“We call on the Morrison government to do everything they can to encourage Brazil to respond to this rapidly worsening global disaster.”
They said failure to defend against or prevent these fires stands to derail any international efforts against climate change…….https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-urges-more-action-to-protect-the-amazon
August 26, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics |
Leave a comment
Submission 11 Keith Thompson (Strange and wonderful arguments) Minimises the importance of Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.
(Get nuclear power for Australia) by creating wealthy and attractive research prizes to completely eradicate these risks. …
For example, if the Australian federal government created an all comers $10m or $100m prize that invented ways to use all existing nuclear power production waste so that there was none left, I believe that universities and private engineering businesses all over the world would be motivated to engage with the problem. Smaller subsidiary prizes for dealing with parts of that nuclear waste could be crafted to be similarly motivating. I expect that with such incentives, the waste problem could be solved within ten years but would certainly be resolved within fifty years. …
The destructive effects of nuclear power. In one sense this criticism of nuclear power is the response of an ostrich to the unknown or danger. If Newton had stopped pondering gravity because it might lead to the discovery of powered flight and the loss of life in aircraft accidents, or the possibility of anti-gravity and power more destructive than that which we are now considering, we would never have learned how to fly or otherwise stood on the shoulders of his discovery. …
August 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
SUBMISSIONS SO FAR PUBLISHED (I’ll be analysing these as they come in, and also publishing this on the page more https://antinuclear.net/submissions-to-2019-inquiries/
1. FEDERAL. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia (Submissions close 16 September 2019
Don’t let’s forget – some submissions are “confidential” – (quite likely a few from nuclear companies )
Pro nuclear
Submission 1 Gavin Brown
Submission 8 Ian Fischer
Submission 10 Paul Myers
Submission 11 Keith Thompson
Submission 12 Barry Murphy
Submission 14 Terry Ryan
Submission 15 Denys J Smith
Submission 17 Terje Petersen (same as his submission to NSW Inquiry)
Submission 18 Allen Tripp
Anti nuclear
Submission 2 Jonathan Peter
Submission 3 Glenda Maxwell
Submission 4 Paul Savi
Submission 6 EcoEnviro Pty Ltd – Richard Finlay-Jones
Submission 7 Derek Abbott
Submission 9 David Gates
August 24, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Submissions Federal 19 |
Leave a comment
|
All the evidence suggests that this isn’t serious exercise. Rather it’s something intended to appease the National Party or troll the Greens, depending on where you are coming from.
Still, it’s a Parliamentary inquiry on an important issue, so I decided to take it at face value and make a submission. My central recommendation is a combined policy
- Introduce a carbon price, rising gradually to $50/tonne of CO2
- Repeal legislative bans on nuclear power
I’m pretty confident this package will have close to zero supporters in Parliament, but it ought to appeal to two groups.
First, anyone who seriously believes that nuclear power should be adopted as a response to climate change. That’s a small, but non-empty set, since most nuclear fans are climate deniers. But for those people, it should be obvious that nuclear power is never going to happen except with a carbon price high enough to wipe out coal, and compete with gas.
Second, renewable supporters who want action now, and are prepared to give nuclear a chance in 15-20 years time if it’s needed. The carbon price would push a rapid transition to solar PV, wind and storage, and would be neutral as between these technologies and nuclear. On present indications, that would be sufficient to decarbonize the electricity supply at low cost. But if a fixed-supply technology turned out to be absolutely necessary, one or two nuclear plants might possibly happen.
I looked over the other submissions. The anti-nuclear ones raise the obvious points about waste, accident risk and proliferation.
 What’s striking about the pro-nuclear submissions is the absence of any mention of existing technologies or the main alternative, small modular reactors, on which I spent a fair bit of time.Rather, the nuclear fans are talking about vaporware such as thorium, Gen IV and even Gen V, described by Wikipedia as ‘ reactors that are purely theoretical and are therefore not yet considered feasible in the short term, resulting in limited R&Dfunding. ‘
|
|
August 24, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Deputy PM apologises for telling Pacific it will survive climate change as workers ‘pick our fruit’ ABC , By political reporter Matthew Doran 23 Aug 19, Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack has apologised for comments about Pacific islanders being able to survive the ravages of climate change by taking fruit-picking jobs in Australia.
Key points:
- Pacific countries want Australia to do more about climate change as they face rising sea levels
- Nationals leader Michael McCormack said last week they would survive because they “pick our fruit”
- He has has offered an apology for the comment “if any insult was taken”
Mr McCormack made the comments last Friday as he sought to dismiss criticism levelled at Prime Minister Scott Morrison following the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), at which leaders claimed Australia was ignoring the threat climate change posed to the survival of vulnerable low-lying island nations.
[I] get a little bit annoyed when we have people in those sorts of countries pointing the finger at Australia and say we should be shutting down all our resources sector so that they will continue to survive,” he said.
“They will continue to survive, there’s no question they will continue to survive, and they will continue to survive with large aid assistance from Australia.
“They will continue to survive because many of their workers come here and pick our fruit.”
On Thursday he apologised…….
‘Appropriate from a drunk in a bar, not from a leader’
The PIF meeting in Tuvalu saw Mr Morrison pressure fellow leaders to water down the PIF’s final declaration, removing references to cutting carbon emissions by phasing out coal.
Former president of Kiribati Anote Tong said he could not understand how Mr McCormack thought it was a smart comment to make.
“If you’re drunk, and in a bar, it would be an appropriate place and time to make the comment. But if you’re speaking as a leader, really it is not appropriate,” he said.
Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga, who hosted the Pacific Islands Forum, said the comments made Pacific Islanders sound like “paupers” who were begging for Australian support. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-22/mccormack-apology-pick-our-fruit/11438312
August 24, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics |
Leave a comment
Well – I am not able to read any submissions to FEDERAL. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia . But I have read all the 11 submissions so far published to New South Wales Inquiry into Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2525&fbclid=IwAR2JjKI28uB4TZIJ38uZRlnQTmCQ3e7QyXk0 . They mostly pretty much read as if they were about setting up nuclear power in Austra ply using the same story to send to the Federal Inquiry. So there’s a hint – a way to save time?
Another hint – some writers are using some or all of their own previous submissions to the 2016 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
In the next days and weeks Antinuclear. net will analyse submissions, as they appear on government websites.
August 22, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
It’s hard to grasp it all, with 4 nuclear Parliamentary submissions going on at the same time, and with short deadlines.
I am attempting to make sense of it all, starting with the Federal one FEDERAL. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia (Submissions close 16 September 2019 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Environment_and_Energy/Nuclearenergy?fbclid=IwAR0Sw4LB2qdcxSI6U6l67lI7Mwz9IEWw7_0RIq3mtN-nfpkfBn4z2VkQGog
A submission can be sent in hard copy by post, or online. It’s quite a performance to send a submission online, but well worth doing. One can refer to any or all of the Terms of Reference.
a. waste management, transport and storage,
b. health and safety,
c. environmental impacts,
d. energy affordability and reliability,
e. economic feasibility,
f. community engagement,
g. workforce capability,
h. security implications,
i. national consensus, and
j. any other relevant matter
Best to write your own submission, but there is also the option of using Friends of the Earth’s pro forma submission.
The Committee of Inquiry may publish submissions, but people (and nuclear companies) can ask for their submissions to be confidential.
August 22, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Nuclear for Ipswich to combat growing carbon emissions, Navarone Farrell, Queensland Times, August 21, 2019 SWANBANK is one of 10 sites in Queensland touted for a nuclear power station after talks at a lobby group summit.
 The Australian Nuclear Association identified the potential sites back in 2016, but with carbon reductions high on politicians’ to-do list, the discussion has been re-opened, according to the lobby group’s vice-president, Robert Parker…….
Ipswich Residents Against Toxic Environments president Jim Dodrill said moving towards nuclear energy based on the premise of carbon footprint reduction “was nonsense”.
“We’re absolutely opposed to (nuclear). It doesn’t make any sense economically, it doesn’t make any sense environmentally and it certainly doesn’t make any sense in the long term in regards to the waste from that form of power generation,” he said.
“People do try to confuse the issue in relation to (nuclear’s) carbon footprint. The carbon footprint of nuclear is very, very high – not in the direct generation of power, but in the indirect.
“You’re talking about moving the fuel over great distances, you’re talking about a lot of storage and the logistics of the fuel and the waste and the set up of that kind of generator.
“It would be, in the long-term, no better than burning coal.”
Mr Dodrill said moving towards another form of non-renewable energy would be a step backwards and that the rest of the world has moved on from nuclear.
“It would make no sense for somewhere like Ipswich – or any city anywhere in Australia – to move into a type of power generation that’s (becoming defunct),” he said.
“It’s nonsense altogether… (this agenda) is obviously being pushed by a particular sector of the far right in Australian politics.”
Bundamba Labor MP Jo-Ann Miller, a fierce opponent of any more “stinks and smells” energy in Ipswich, ridiculed the idea.
“Australia cannot even work out what it needs to do in relation to the nuclear plant in Sydney,” she said.
“It’s certainly is at no stage of looking at nuclear-based power. Our city for many, many years has been a nuclear-free zone and that’s the way it should stay.
“We do not want incinerators and we do not want nuclear power plants in our back yards, it’s a no-go.”… “How dare they consider Swanbank and my electorate without even having a conversation with the local people, and I can assure them that our locals would be very much against it,” she said. https://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/regional/nuclear-for-ipswich-to-combat-growing-carbon-emissions/news-story/61af3052d10672573bb761eed16af606
|
|
|
August 22, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Opposition to nuclear, politics, Queensland |
Leave a comment
Council announces dates for Kimba radioactive waste ballot, Kimba District Council, 21 Aug 19, The Kimba community will have its say on the of the Commonwealth Government’s proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at one of two nominated sites in the district from October 3.
The District Council of Kimba today announced the dates for the long-awaited ballot, which has been delayed for more than 12 months due to litigation.
While the favourable judgment received by Council in the Federal Court of Australia on 12 July has been appealed, Mayor Dean Johnson said that there was no legal impediment to the ballot proceeding to determine the level of community support as part of the overall site selection process.
“Council’s position has always been to facilitate the ballot on behalf of the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia so our community could have its voice heard, and we reaffirmed that position at our ordinary meeting last week,” he explained.
“We were advised this morning that the Minister no longer requests that the Kimba and Hawker ballots to be run concurrently, so Council has commenced planning with a view to ballot papers being posted out on 3 October.”
The ballot will be run in a manner identical to that scheduled to be held in 2018, and applications from eligible ratepayers and residents for inclusion on the voters roll will be open for a period of three weeks from 23 August 2019 until midday on 13 September 2019…..http://www.kimba.sa.gov.au/page.aspx?u=408&c=10102&fbclid=IwAR1y2ZfiGYV6gFpnvtTkWYWNs1_LcelO3cQ1iLG3RaC22tVRoHy0NHQ2igg
August 22, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
7 reasons why Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are a bad idea for Australia, more https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/seven-reasons-why-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-are-a-bad-idea-for-australia,13010
Small Nuclear Reactors are in the news internationally, and, rather more quietly, also in Australia.
International news reports that, in a failed missile test in Russia, a small nuclear reactor blew up, killing five nuclear scientists, and releasing a radiation spike.
In Australian news, with considerably less media coverage, Parliament announced an Inquiry into nuclear energy for Australia, with an emphasis on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Submissions are due by September 16.
A bit of background. The U.S. government and the U.S. nuclear industry are very keen to develop and export small modular nuclear reactors for two main reasons, both explained in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2018 Firstly, with the decline of large nuclear reactors, there is a need to maintain the technology and the expertise, trained staff, necessary to support the nuclear weapons industry. Secondly, the only hope for commercial viability of small nuclear reactors is in exporting them – the domestic market is too small. So – Australia is seen as a desirable market.
The USA motivation for exporting these so far non-existent prefabricated reactors is clear. The motivation of their Australian promoters is not so clear.
These are the main reasons why it would be a bad idea for Australia to import small modular nuclear reactors.
-
COST.Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University’s Department of Engineering and Public Policy concluded that the SMR industry would not be viable unless the industry received “several hundred billion dollars of direct and indirect subsidies” over the next several decades. For a company to invest in a factory to manufacture reactors, they’d need to be sure of a real market for them – Australia would have to commit to a strong investment up front.
The diseconomics of scale make SMRs more expensive than large reactors. A 250 MW SMR will generate 25 percent as much power as a 1,000 MW reactor, but it will require more than 25 percent of the material inputs and staffing, and a number of other costs including waste management and decommissioning will be proportionally higher.
A study by WSP / Parsons Brinckerhoff, commissioned by the 2015/16 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, estimated costs of A$180‒184/MWh (US$127‒130) for large pressurised water reactors and boiling water reactors, compared to A$198‒225 (US$140‒159) for SMRs.
To have any hope of being economically viable, SMRs would have to be mass produced and deployed, and here is a “Catch-22″ problem The economics of mass production of SMRs cannot be proven until hundreds of units are in operation. But that can’t happen unless there are hundreds of orders, and there will be few takers unless the price can be brought down. Huge government subsidy is therefore required
-
Safety problems. Small nuclear reactors still have the same kinds of safety needsas large ones have. The heat generated by the reactor core must be removed both under normal and accident conditions, to keep the fuel from overheating, becoming damaged, and releasing radioactivity. The passive natural circulation coolingcould be effective under many conditions, but not under all accident conditions. For instance, for the NuScale design a large earthquake could send concrete debris into the pool, obstructing circulation of water or air. Where there are a number of units, accidents affecting more than one small unit may cause complications that could overwhelm the capacity to cope with multiple failures.
Because SMRs have weaker containment systems than current reactors, there would be greater damage if a hydrogen explosion occurred. A secondary containment structure would prevent large-scale releases of radioactivity in case of a severe accident. But that would make individual SMR units unaffordable. The result? Companies like NuScale now move to projects called “Medium” nuclear reactors – with 12 units under a single containment structure. Not really small anymore.
Underground siting is touted as a safety solution, to avoid aircraft attacks and earthquakes. But that increases the risks from flooding. In the event of an accident emergency crews could have greater difficulty accessing underground reactors.
Security
Proponents of SMRs argue that they can be deployed safely both as a fleet of units close to cities, or as individual units in remote locations. In all cases, they’d have to operate under a global regulatory framework, which is going to mean expensive security arrangements and a level of security staffing. ‘Economies of scale’ don’t necessarily work, when it comes to staffing small reactors. SMRs will, anyway, need a larger number of workers to generate a kilowatt of electricity than large reactors need. In the case of security staffing, this becomes important both in a densely populated area, and in an isolated one.
-
Weapons Proliferation.
The latest news on the Russian explosion is a dramatic illustration of the connection between SMRs and weapons development.
But not such a surprise. SMRs have always had this connection, beginning in the nuclear weapons industry, in powering U.S. nuclear submarines. They were used in UK to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Today, the U.S. Department of Energy plans to use SMRs as part of “dual use” facilities, civilian and military. SMRs contain radioactive materials, produce radioactive wastes – could be taken, used part of the production of a “dirty bomb” The Pentagon’s Project Dilithium’s small reactors may run on Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) , nuclear weapons fuel – increasing these risks.
It is now openly recognised that the nuclear weapons industry needs the technology development and the skilled staff that are provided by the “peaceful” nuclear industry. The connection is real, but it’s blurred. The nuclear industry needs the “respectability” that is conferred by new nuclear, with its claims of “safe, clean, climate-solving” energy.
- Wastes.
SMRs are designed to produce less radioactive trash than current reactors. But they still produce long-lasting nuclear wastes, and in fact, for SMRs this is an even more complex problem. Australia already has the problem of spent nuclear fuel waste, accumulating in one place – from the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. With SMRs adopted, the waste would be located in many sites, with each location having the problem of transport to a disposal facility. Final decommissioning of all these reactors would compound this problem. In the case of underground reactors, there’d be further difficulties with waste retrieval, and site rehabilitation.
6. Location.
I have touched on this, in the paragraphs on safety, security, and waste problems. The nuclear enthusiasts are excited about the prospects for small reactors in remote places. After all, aren’t some isolated communities already having success with small, distributed solar and wind energy? It all sounds great. But it isn’t.
With Australia’s great distances, it would be difficult to monitor and ensure the security of such a potentially dangerous system, of many small reactors scattered about on this continent. Nuclear is an industry that is already struggling to attract qualified staff, with a large percentage of skilled workers nearing retirement. The logistics of operating these reactors, meeting regulatory and inspection requirements, maintaining security staff would make the whole thing not just prohibitively expensive, but completely impractical.
- Delay.
For Australia, this has to be the most salient point of all. Economist John Quiggin has pointed out that Australia’s nuclear fans are enthusing about small modular nuclear reactors, but with no clarity on which, of the many types now designed, would be right for Australia. NuScale’s model, funded by the U.S. government, is the only one at present with commercial prospects, so Quiggin has examined its history of delays. But Quiggin found that NuScale is not actually going to build the factory: it is going to assemble the reactor parts, these having been made by another firm, – and which firm is not clear. Quiggin concludes:
Australia’s proposed nuclear strategy rests on a non-existent plant to be manufactured by a company that apparently knows nothing about it.
As there’s no market for small nuclear reactors, companies have not invested much money to commercialise them. Westinghouse Electric Company tried for years to get government funding for its SMR plan, then gave up, and switched to other projects. Danny Roderick, then president and CEO of Westinghouse, announced:
The problem I have with SMRs is not the technology, it’s not the deployment ‒ it’s that there’s no customers. … The worst thing to do is get ahead of the market.
Russia’s programme has been delayed by more than a decade and the estimated costs have ballooned.
South Korea decided on SMRs, but then pulled out, presumably for economic reasons.
China is building one demonstration SMR, but has dropped plans to build 18 more, due to diseconomics of the scheme.
There’s a lot of chatter in the international media, about all the countries that are interested, or even have signed memoranda of understanding about buying SMRs, but still with no plans for actual purchase or construction.
Is Australia going to be the guinea pig for NuScale’s Small and Medium Reactor scheme? If so,when? The hurdles to overcome would be mind-boggling. The start would have to be the repeal of Australia’s laws – the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 Section 140A and Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998. Then comes the overcoming of States’ laws, much political argy-bargy, working out regulatory frameworks, import and transport of nuclear materials, – finding locations for siting reactors, – Aboriginal issues-community consent, waste locations. And what would it all cost?
And, in the meantime, energy efficiency developments, renewable energy progress, storage systems – will keep happening, getting cheaper, and making nuclear power obsolete.
August 17, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Beautiful Flinders, The Advertiser, MICHELE MADIGAN, 15 Aug 19
RE Susan Andersson’s letter “No nuclear move” (The Advertiser, yesterday): As I travelled south along the highway from Coober Pedy this week, the glorious Flinders Ranges to the east were an inspiring sight.
One can only wonder at a Federal Government, which proposes to build a low-level nuclear dump (toxic for 300 years) and, even more concerning, as the letter stated, to simply store intermediate nuclear waste (toxic for 10,000 years) at such an iconic Australian site.
Neither does it make sense to build and store such literally halfway across the country in the international grain farming area of the Kimba region.
Yes, surely, both for residents and we travellers, it is safer (and better for the SA economy) to store the intermediate-level waste where it is – under the eyes of the nuclear experts.
August 17, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics |
Leave a comment
The parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power will be a test for Australia’s newest, prominent climate campaigner, Zali Steggall, the member for Warringah on Sydney’s lower north shore.
Steggall, who is a member of the committee conducting the inquiry, didn’t want to pre-empt it by expressing a view towards nuclear power. …..Financial Review 15 Aug 19
Coalition MPs are usually loyal to the government. If Taylor didn’t want to build the case for nuclear power, it is hard to see why he would have commissioned the inquiry.
In that case, it may be that the process is more important than the outcome. Get ready for a nuclear sales job.
August 17, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Inquiry to explore Victoria going nuclear, Yahoo News Benita Kolovos
August 15, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, Victoria |
Leave a comment
What’s striking about the pro-nuclear submissions is the absence of any mention of existing technologies or the main alternative, small modular reactors, on which I spent a fair bit of time.Rather, the nuclear fans are talking about vaporware such as thorium, Gen IV and even Gen V, described by Wikipedia as ‘ reactors that are purely theoretical and are therefore not yet considered feasible in the short term, resulting in limited R&Dfunding. ‘
Antinuclear 