The case for nuclear
Geoff Russell writes: Re. “Nuclear: the power source for innumerates and socialists” (December 1). Bernard Keane should know better than to compare kilowatts of nuclear with kilowatts of solar. A kilowatt of nuclear typically delivers five times more electricity than a kilowatt of solar and delivers it on demand. Is there any industry on the planet that runs solely on a narcoleptic workforce who not only nod off from time to time but come and go as they please? No. But that’s the wind+solar renewable energy model.
Employing many times more staff may well work on paper with all kinds of dodgy assumptions, but why bother? It’s simply stupid. So it’s no wonder that AEMO’s 2013 report postulated a biofuel baseload subsystem, and it’s no wonder that Germany is burning half of its forestry output for electricity. Renewables failed during the oil crisis and are still failing. Germany’s decarbonisation rate has slowed to a trickle since it passed the Renewable Energy Act in 2000 and started retiring nuclear.
It doesn’t matter how cheap or cuddly an energy system is if it doesn’t deliver rapid deep decarbonisation. Betting the planet on failed technologies isn’t an option.
Another explanation for MH370
Niall Clugston writes: Re. “Malaysian conspiracy to cover up the truth of MH370” (yesterday). Ben Sandilands’ article about the missing Malaysian airline MH370 ignores a credible possibility: that the mystery is a case of insurance fraud.
Word of the Year?
James Burke writes: Re. “Politics on hold while Sydney siege continues” (yesterday). I’d like to propose a late entry for Word of the Year: “in-shahada” (n): (1) the intellectual incapacity of any Australian journalist to understand that an ordinary religious text may be distorted by fundamentalists; (2) any term or concept for which the only referent is a Wikipedia page.
The case for nuclear?
Let’s all just shout abuse at each other. Its not like we listen to the other side anyway.
If a nuclear derived kilowatt makes more electricity than a solar derived, does a tonne of lead weigh more than a tonne of feathers?
No?
Geoff,
What do you mean by a kW of nuclear delivers 5 times as much electricity as a kW of solar? A solar panel producing 1 kW produces exactly the same amount of electricity a a nuclear reactor producing 1 kW.
The only difference is that a nuclear reactor can be turned up to some extent meeting demand, although it can’t be turned down below a certain minimum, without being shut off completely.
Solar also doesn’t provide electricity at night, so alternate supplies or a means of storage are necessary. The efficiciency of solar panels is currently around 15%, which compares with nuclear reactors which have an efficiency of 1-2% (a lot of the contained energy is left in the nuclear waste, which then has to be safely stored for very long periods. 4th generation fast breeders promise to increase the yield and make the waste problem manageable).
Hey Geoff,
I’m not sure that you should be commenting on Bernard Keane’s inability to calculate things when your skills at it aren’t that crash hot.
http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/russell
It’s also usual for people with vested interests to declare them before speaking or writing.
wayne robinson – 4th generation is the new term for breeders because the original name has overpromised and underdelivered for the last sixty years. They seem to work OK in small prototypes but don’t scale. See Fermi (Detroit), Monju and Superphenix for some notable debacles resulting from building industrial-scale breeder power stations.
Malcolm,
I think we’re actually in agreement. Nuclear should only be considered when the cost, safety and waste disposal problems are solved. Geoff appears to be wanting nuclear immediately.
The 4th generation fast breeder reactors promising to be more efficient and making waste disposal manageable isn’t the same as ‘are’ now.
I was mainly taking issue with nuclear producing 5 times as much as solar, and was querying that.
Solar panels convert 15% of incident light into electricity, so they’re 15% efficient. Nuclear is 1-2% efficient in converting energy into electricity. Coal power plants are 30-50% efficient.
Solar panels don’t produce electricity at night. Even so. I’m very happy with the 8 panels I have, which should be producing a maximum of 1.2 kW (at 15% efficiency) but the maximum I get is 1 kW (because I don’t have a north facing roof, they’re on the west facing roof). If the Sun shone 24/7, that would yield 24 kW.hr per day. The maximum I get in Summer is 8.5 kW.hr per day. In Winter around 3. Year round average about 5.5. Which is more than enough to cover my electricity consumption year round, except for July.