Terry Court, Tatura
Sam Birrell (The News, June 27) is calling for a mature discussion on nuclear energy.
Well, it would be a good start if the Coalition would present the correct information.
The Coalition has repeatedly stated, in error, that Labor has only a renewable energy solution. Labour has detailed that its plan includes a suite of technologies, including gas, for peaking demand. According to the Australian Energy Markets Operator, gas-peaking plants would make up about 5 per cent of the 2050 demand, at which time hydrogen may be used in these plants to further reduce overall carbon emissions.
The Coalition’s statement that nuclear would replace the baseload power that coal currently provides is superfluous because we will not need baseload power but firming and peaking power. The firming power will be provided by dispatchable energy in the form of batteries, etc, and peaking power provided by gas.
Gas power plants will only operate when required and can be at full production in 30 minutes and closed down in a similar time. Batteries only take seconds to respond. Nuclear plants cannot deliver this level of flexibility, and only in extreme situations can they reduce electricity output by wasting huge amounts of steam and money.
The CSIRO’s GenCost report noted that nuclear was still likely to be at least 50 per cent more expensive than large-scale wind and solar power backed by “firming and peaking” technologies such as batteries. Renewables are currently the cheapest form of electricity and will continue to get cheaper.
Regarding the Coalition’s claim that 28,000km of transmission lines would be required for the large-scale solar and wind projects, AEMO details that only 10,000km would be required, some of which have already been completed, and nearly 3000km would be completed by 2029. The Coalition neglects to state that these power lines would be required with nuclear power stations.
The statement that nuclear power plants with the latest technology are incredibly safe is questioned. There have been at least 57 accidents and severe incidents since the Chornobyl disaster in 1986. That disaster had a negative impact on northern Europe and England.
In the case of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, 47,000 people were evacuated from the 600 sq km exclusion zone.
High-risk nuclear waste contains plutonium-239, which has a half-life of 24,100 years and must be placed at least 500 metres underground in suitable containers. The United States currently has more than 90,000 tonnes of nuclear waste to dispose of. Most of this waste is stored where it was generated, with no permanent disposal solution.
Some sources estimate that there will be three serious accidents from now to 2050.
With regard to life spans referred to in Mr Birrell’s article, the life span of a nuclear plant is more like 40 to 60 years, not 80 to 100 years, and plants can take decades to decommission and make safe.
Solar and wind have life spans of up to 35 years, not 20 years mentioned, and 95 per cent of both can be recycled readily.
The land area required to meet 92 per cent of electricity demand from wind and solar in 2050 is 1200 sq km of alienated land. This is 0.34 per cent of arable land and 0.03 per cent of agricultural land. Put another way, this is equivalent to 45 sq m per person.
The 1200 sq km includes an allowance for our electricity usage increasing from 10MW per person per year to 30MW/person/year.
I know which source of electricity I would prefer.