Nuclear Energy: A Layperson’s Dilemma
In 2013, I wrote a piece titled, “Climate Change: A layperson’s Dilemma” in which I pointed out the debunked theories of people like Andrew Bolt, Prof Ian Plimer, Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Barnaby Joyce, Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, and others who insisted that climate change did not exist.
Science won the day, proving beyond doubt that it indeed did.
Now, Australian conservatives and their media supporters seem to have changed tact. While softening their stance on climate change “almost” to the point of a pretence of acceptance, they are now promoting nuclear energy as the answer to Australia’s energy problems.
On the surface, this is a reasonable proposition except for a) the cost to build, b) the time it would take, and c) where to build the reactors.
Cleverly, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has started a debate that he hopes will become as clear as mud and confuse further those already so in the hope that he opens another option that isn’t one supported by Labor but one that gives him creditability in the debate.
Former Liberal leader John Hewson, writing for the Saturday Paper says, “The climate wars may be over, but the battle continues. Now, the climate deniers have become renewables deniers.”
And may I suggest an argument that appeases those on his backbench, like Senators Rennick and Antic, who still believe that climate change doesn’t exist and that Coal is the answer to our energy problems?
For those who want to think a little deeper, it guarantees old and new power companies an extra twenty years to dig up the dirty stuff, given the 20-25 years it would take to build the power stations.
Within the conservative nuclear argument is a bluff to appease the conspiracy nutter mentalities who gain prominence by being controversially stupid, the coal companies and the sceptics in the general public. Such as Peter Dutton:
“I’m strongly in favour of renewables, but we need to keep the lights on, and we need to keep our prices down.”
How could you possibly trust those first six words?
From the ABC:
“The opposition is pushing for the development of small modular nuclear reactors across Australia and, more recently, for large nuclear reactors to be built on the sites that close coal-fired power stations.”
The ‘GenCost’ report [which is produced annually by the Australian Energy Market Operator] considered the cost of new energy generators – including small modular reactors but not sizeable nuclear power plants – with and without associated ‘integration costs’ such as transmission and storage.
Even when those integration costs were considered, variable renewables’ cost range was still the lowest of all new-build technologies, with small modular nuclear reactors and hydrogen peaking plants being the most expensive.”
All Peter Dutton has to do is convince the punters that we cannot live without nuclear power. He can do this with his party’s renowned brand of negativity, lies, and scare campaigns. But remember, they couldn’t even build a few car parks.
What occurs to me now is that I’m faced with the same layperson’s dilemma as I had back in 2015: In the days of Tony Abbott’s “climate change is crap” lie. (Abbott interview with Kerry Obrien).
Upon introspection, I couldn’t help but wonder how could Abbott possess such an astute understanding of climate science to the extent that he could disregard it as nonsense when it was apparent that his knowledge of internet science was so minimal?
This, in turn, prompted me to question my own comprehension. I had to admit that although I followed the debate rigorously and considered myself well-informed, I needed to learn about climate science. Ask me about literature, art, political and religious philosophy, music, and sports, I can handle myself adequately, but science, no.
If asked about these complex topics, many people would need help explaining the splitting of an atom, carbon dating, space exploration, medical advancements, mobile phone systems, DNA, AI, genetics, or electricity production. The average citizen may need help understanding them.
So, as a layperson, where does this leave me? Whom do I believe? Well, for me, it is a no-brainer. I support science.
In the last few years, I have undergone several operations. I have had a heart attack (2 stents) and bowel cancer. Of late, it has been eye problems, another heart issue and a prostate issue. When confronted with these matters, I never questioned the specialists. I acknowledged the depth of scientific research that had given my doctors the knowledge to perform any necessary procedure.
So, why should I question the ‘good’ science of nuclear physics? There is no reason why Australia shouldn’t have it. It’s the cost and the time that are against it. Is the government going to foot the bill or private enterprise? Are they just pulling a swiftie in support of Coal?
In short, the nuclear debate began like this.
It’s been over a month since Mr Dutton criticised the CSIRO for their research on nuclear power, calling it Australia’s most expensive new energy source, and claimed that the estimates of the cost of renewables are unreliable. However, the CSIRO’s chief executive, Douglas Hilton, stood by their General Cost report and warned that it’s crucial for our political leaders to trust and support science. Despite this, the opposition leader repeated his incorrect claim that the report doesn’t accurately cost renewables and required transmission to integrate them into the grid.
On the other hand, Ted Obrien, the opposition spokesperson on energy, recently appeared on 7.30 to support nuclear power. Sadly, his argument was ineffective and lacked substance. I thought his main point, deceptively, was that “coal would last longer” if it took twenty or more years to build nuclear power stations. They plan for large reactors in disused coal mines and smaller reactors in locations yet to be named. How long it would take to build them is still an open question.
It’s essential to consider the long-term effects of our energy choices. By supporting renewable energy sources, we can create sustainable and affordable energy systems, reduce our carbon footprint, and ensure a better future for future generations.
There are better ways forward than disparaging science and spreading misinformation. Our leaders must prioritize science and make informed decisions to protect our planet and its people. A spine-tingling question, that one.
Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull explained that:
“Nuclear reactors do not ‘firm up’ renewables. Solar and wind are intermittent – depending on sunshine or wind to make electricity. But we have them in great abundance. To firm them we need flexible, dispatchable sources of zero emission energy such as pumped hydro, batteries or green hydrogen. Nuclear reactors cannot turn on and off, ramp up and down like hydro or batteries can. Nuclear reactors generate continuously.”
While Tony Abbott was proclaiming that climate change was crap, and the coal companies donating to the Liberal Party were given a reprieve. It set in place a decade of science denial that made Australia a laughingstock around the world. Now, the same fools are wanting, despite all the evidence that says it is too costly and would take too long, to impose nuclear energy on us.
The problem for lay people like me is that nothing has changed.
How does a layperson like me reach a view on such matters without formal training? It’s simple: do as I do. There are many areas (medicine, for example) in which, as an individual without an extensive analytical background, I, like many others, rely on experts, common sense, observation, and life experience to form my understanding. While theories, such as the theory of evolution, may be easily comprehended, many assume that theories need to be proven. However, it is crucial to note that theories are not merely conjectures or untested hypotheses. Instead, they are rigorously tested explanations supported by a vast body of evidence. As such, theories provide a framework for understanding complex phenomena and play a critical role in advancing knowledge across various disciplines.
In the scientific world, a theory has evolved to fit known facts.
Conversely, those who deny climate change and the overwhelming scientific consensus seek to justify their belief by attaching themselves to a minority of science deniers with obscure qualifications or, worse, to right-wing shock jocks and journalists with no scientific training whatsoever.
These people cannot evaluate the volume of data produced by the various scientific institutions.
So, for the layperson, the choice is to approve the science or default to the opinions of the Duttons and Bolts of this world. Good luck with that.
My thought for the day
“We should all read with an openness to the possibility of being radically changed.” (Author unknown).
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
20 comments
Login here Register here-
Phil Pryor -
Steve Davis -
GL -
Harry Lime -
Steve Davis -
Harry Lime -
Steve Davis -
Terence Mills -
L Ballaam -
totaram -
frances -
New England Cocky -
wam -
Terence Mills -
GL -
uncletimrob -
Terence Mills -
Andrew Smith -
Terence Mills -
wam
Return to home pageThe gross igorance of conservatives, e g., Abbott to mad Morrison, poker and gulper Joyce, Peter Depth O’Dunce, and so many more Australian conservative education dodgers, civilisation shirkers, science slobs, logic louts, analysis analities and swampskulled swill, is frightening, as they actually fantasise that they represent an intelligent approach to life itself. In fact, this lot are lower than a parasite’s prodder, a flea’s fanny, a nematode’s nuts, a midge’s Mort’s Dock, a termite’s todger, that even Menzies would swear, in private of course. Nuclear power generation for us is so uneconomic, so retail ripoffable, so yankee comeinsuckery, so stupidly uncivilised, that only the depraved who live by lies, bribes, donor’s desperation and the evils of putrid greed could see this as a way to suppress the shitheads otherwise known as compliant dull suckers, or voters. Is there enough intelligent observation out there to see the obvious??
Great article.
The layperson does not have to trust any experts on the pros and cons of nuclear power, we only have to be aware of one fact.
Insurance companies are experts on risks, and they will not insure nuclear power stations.
This sheds more light on the confidence trick that is liberal economics.
All those calling for nuclear power, without exception, are free marketeers, devotees of liberal economic theory.
And what is one of the foundation principles of liberal theory?
That private enterprise is superior to social enterprise, superior to government investment in infrastructure.
But these ideologues have no qualms in calling for construction of nuclear power plants, knowing that the taxpayer will foot the enormous bill, because such a development would allow for the parasitical nature of liberalism to come to the fore.
As soon as a liberal govt is elected after construction, the plants would be privatised, sold at a below-cost price, doubling the benefit of the boondoggle for their mates. The call for nuclear power is a confidence trick.
There is no morality in liberalism.
Liberalism is the greatest threat to life on the planet.
P. Duddy was once asked, “How is nuclear power created?”
After much, um, thought, he replied, “You get lots and lots of little tiny teeny weenie things and hit them together with lots and lots of other little tiny teeny weenie things and hey presto, power comes out.”
“How do you collect the power so that it can be used?”
“By using tiny vacuum cleaners to suck up the power dust…my brain is starting hurt.”
“Let’s leave it there shall we. You eyes are starting to glow.”
“Quick, get the nuclear doctor with a vacuum cleaner, I’m making power.”
Excellent article,.John,the dud Dutton will do or say anything to fulfil his (in his opinion) destiny to become the worst PM never.
Re your litany of medical issues…I’ll see that and raise you a late onset type 1 diabetes.Getting old has absolutely nothing to recommend it.,but thank Christ for medical science.
Harry, you forgot the one good thing about old age — wisdom old mate, WISDOM!
Oh, and one other — you don’t give two hoots about what people think about you. 🙂
Steve,I’ve never given a shit about what other people think about me,but I could have used the wisdom a lot earlier.I also forgot about grandchildren..couldn’t delight in them without some miles on the clock.
Indeed Harry, well said.
Quite incredibly the media have allowed P Dutton to waffle on about his nuclear brain-fart but have not posed the important questions for him to answer – he contributes to this obfuscation by avoiding the ABC and sticking to appearances on SKY and other commercial stations who either haven’t got the time or depth of analysis to ask the hard questions :
How many nuclear power plants (both SMR and large scale reactors)
Cost per unit installed and operational
Time frame for acquisition and installation
Location of each installation
Waste storage arrangements and locations
Answer those fundamental questions, Spud and then we can have a conversation.
By the way, does Spud realize that we are talking about steam engines – Coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear energy all use their fuel to boil water into steam and use that steam pressure to turn the turbine ?
It amazes me how folk are distracted by the usual digressive tactics employed by the so called denialists, they have no intention of changing one iota of lifestyle to adapt to the vagaries of renewable energies,
Besides being totally debunked on their intransigence, they continue to adhere to the old ways, somehow believing persistence beats resistance.
But as we are about to find out you cannot reason with Zealots.
Terence: You ask about numbers. The RWNJs always avoid numbers. These will always confuse their “base” and also destroy any arguments they propound. The best they can do is to use one number that supports their argument, but leave out the other number that counters it.
Sadly, the “voting morons” (aka easily fooled low information and low education people) fall for these “explanations”. Just go to any Skynews video and read the comments.
This is a serious problem for democracy in an increasingly technological civilisation. Why do you think RWNJs oppose education, except through mumbo jumbo? I read somewhere that 40% of the USA population has never even heard of the theory of evolution. Go figure.
A thought-provoking article, thank you John Lord.
Not wishing to nitpick I have a niggle however.
While you stoically mention your cancer (among other life-threatening health issues) as evidence of how we lay people implicitly trust proven science to extend our lives, somewhat ironically – given the proven carcinogenic effects of radiation – the hazards of nuclear energy and the problems associated with waste disposal do not rate a mention.
Though implied by (c), I respectfully ask why the omission?
Certainly one has to wonder who cleans up after Peter Dutton.
In the UK the issue of disposal has become so political that it seems “science doesn’t matter.”
https://www.wired.com/story/inside-sellafield-nuclear-waste-decommissioning/#:~:text=Sellafield%20currently%20costs%20the%20UK,This%20is%20Sellafield's%20great%20quandary.
Ah ….. that is nice ….. John Lord continues to impart his wisdom even though I was denied access due to ”interesting” computer reception during our recent travels. Now to fix the link to AIMN. (Thank you Michael, your latest link works fine). And thanks to Harry Lime for his kind words.
The difficulty with nuclear power is that any Chernobyl type generator disaster at any location in southern Australia producing nuclear contamination will quickly be blown across at least one major metropolitan city; Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney or Brisbane. Then consider the regional cities that would also be impacted; Ballarat, Bendigo, Albury Wodonga, Wagga Wagga, Orange-Bathurst, Tamworth, etc.
So really the only suitable locations are the Dickson electorate in NW Brisbane and the Gold Coast so that such nuclear contamination would blow out to sea and possibly over to New Zealand ….. would the elected representatives of those two electorates recommend nuclear contamination risk to their voters??
These contamination concerns make the more pressing disadvantages of high establishment cost, long lead time, high electricity production cost trivial by comparison.
Nope!! The sensible solution is solar and wind generation supplying regional centres as independent entities possibly linked to the national grid because the cities cannot yet produce sufficient electrical power to support their own manufacturing industries.
Oops!! Silly me!! ….. the other benefit of solar & wind power generation built in presently regional centres could be the decentralisation of industries to regional centres that can produce the required quantum of energy. No that would be interesting ….. steel production in the Pilbarra, cattle abattoirs in Central Australia, wool processing returned to district growing centres.
Glad you survived the hospital fare and, gladder, that the nurses’ care, let the surgeon’s work succeed. lord. I, for one, have been too worried to inquire. Nuclear reaction, producing power, would be a boon to Darwin. All the power we would ever need and we are in close proximity to a 100m+ energy hungry people. We also have an abundance gas and of renewable options in solar, tides and wind. ps Your thought deserves: “June 2022 the IEA report on Nuclear Power and Secure Energy Transitions concluded that nuclear energy can “help make the energy sector’s journey away from unabated fossil fuels faster and more secure,” with nuclear being “well placed to help decarbonise electricity supply”. The report emphasizes the significant role nuclear plants can play in securing the global pathway to net zero.”
I note that Spudley Dutton will be on Insiders this morning (Sunday) and no doubt David Speers will pose all the relevant questions to Dutton on his nuclear policy.
I’ll report back later when Spud will no doubt have explained everything (or not).
Terence,
P Duddy using his vast knowledge of the nuclear industry? I expect he’ll flick through his latest copy of Noocalear Power the superhero (10 pages of crayon art and 12 pages of Gina and Rupert advertising wonder for $7.95) that the LNP loves and adores to help create excellent and totally convincing arguments for coal powered nuclear reactors and non-existent SMR’s.
A quick search suggests that a conventional nuclear power station costs between USD$14bn and USD$30bn – for us Aussies, that’s between AUD$20bn and AUD$45bn (roughly). SMR’s are at the moment an unknown cost wise, but the yet to be completed NuScale unit in Georgia has a current price tag of USD$30bn or more.
Let’s say that a 15kWh rooftop solar system with suitable battery costs $30 000 to install in Brisbane (for example, as it’s pretty sunny there most of the time). A quick calculation tells me that for those predicted nuclear costs, we could install between 650 000 and 1500 000 of these solar systems for the same cost as one nuclear plant. For quite a lot of households, a system like that would allow them to be grid free.
Yeah yeah, I know that there are other considerations like trees, roof orientation, number of cloudy days, power use per household etc.
Well, if you watched the Dutton interview on Insiders you will be no further advanced on the nuclear power policy the coalition had been planning to announce prior to the budget – that will now not happen and P Duddy will announce whatever, whenever, if ever.
He did say that Australia was the only country in the G20 group of countries not having a nuclear energy program – that turned out to be inaccurate or a slip of the tongue or an outright lie.
In all, Dutton was typically underprepared and evasive on coalition policy – surely there must be rumblings with the Liberal Party to dump this guy ?
Nuclear is cynically used as a delaying technique on transition away from fossil fuels to squeeze out income streams for as long as possible vs. cheaper renewable.
Also requires Australians to be cut off from the media that informs and ignore the outside world; part of the shared Anglo & Russian antipathy towards the EU, its regulatory and standards regime on environment, fossil fuels/renewables, taxes and finance.
FT: ‘Opinion Data Points: Economics may take us to net zero all on its own. The plummeting cost of low-carbon energy has already allowed many countries to decouple economic growth from emissions’
https://www.ft.com/content/967e1d77-8d3c-4256-9339-6ea7025cd5d3
By the way, the other thing Dutton…….suggested on Insiders that coal and gas would fill the power gap as Australia waited for nuclear….”
And there you have it in a nut shell, folks, this is the fraud of the LNP laid bare. This isn’t a serious alternative energy policy – it’s a wink and a nod to the fossil fuel industry.
Well, dance of the cuckoos, compared to the rabbott, susson everything, the italian and Barnaby, Dutton comes over as intelligent and lucid.
ps
Remember old sol is nuclear so fusion is surely a worthwhile goal??