I figured that's where you were going with this, which is why I responded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
Given recent events in Ukraine, you only need to look at the strategic value of decentralised energy that is on tap 24/7.
|
I agree wholeheartedly with distributed/decentralised power, but disagree strongly that Thorium, or any, nuclear reactors are the solution
for Australia.
Quote:
|
Thorium (read cheap/clean grid power) for me is a no-brainer.
|
I disagree strongly. I do not "read cheap/clean grid power" at all. Regardless of whether the reactor is powered by Thorium (which is never Thorium alone) or Uranium (which is never Uranium alone), it's
still a nuclear reactor. It still requires a nuclear industry (that we don't have), fuel cycle management, waste management (which may be easier then Uranium, but it's still there), proliferation protection (still a problem if less so than Uranium), safety management (not necessarily better in reality and
in the short-term than Uranium, depending on reactor type), and, above all, construction of reactors - an enormous endeavour of eye-watering cost on the scale required. As I mentioned, there is considerable hype around Thorium - I've been following the argument for 25 years or so - it's interesting, has some advantages, but is no panacea.
And whether it's 10, 100 or 1000 reactors, that's nowhere near as decentralised as 5+ million (or more) solar rooftops and batteries and thousands of community-scale batteries not to mention the rest of the renewable sources and other storage mechanisms.
I have no problem with the safety aspects - Australia is a smart and stable country that I'm confident could implement the required regulatory regime and uphold rigorous engineering standards
given enough time and money - but the economics and required timeframes rule out nuclear energy regardless of fuel or reactor type.
In Australia, through to 2050 and probably long after, there is
no way in hell that nuclear power is cost-effective when compared to renewables, firming and storage. Australia does not need nuclear power.
But it is interesting, and for that, thanks for posting.
(Just for info: I'm actually pro nuclear-powered subs, but that's a different argument altogether. Even so, in the end, the economics of that venture may not add up either).