Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
They are fortunate enough to have other sources.
Up to them. They rely on natural gas and coal, so probably in the long run they need something else. They've also got tons of uranium. I'm assuming the cost is the main reason why they don't do it. Everybody who has nuclear power finds it rather prohibitively expensive without extensive government subsidies.
Australia is typically a bit more free market than we are so they're probably loathe to do such a thing as subsidize their energy production like we do.
Australia does not need and could not manage "civil" or any other sort of nuclear power.
Apart from the general reality, that applies to all countries (except those where the State owns the nuclear company), nuclear power is not a viable financial proposition. Indeed, nuclear power is not financially viable anywhere, but can be seen to be so, where the tax-payer runs it, and particularly, where it is linked to nuclear weapons building.
Australia does not have a nuclear weapons industry to maintain, or to sell to other countries, so does not need the ''fig-leaf' of 'civil' nuclear power.
But in Australia's case, there are particular reasons why nuclear power is unmanageable. One main one is simply – WATER. Australia is the driest continent, (excepting Antarctica). Nuclear power plants must be reasonably accessible to the power grid, but very accessible to the water they need for cooling. In Australia, this would mean positioning them close to the one big river system or to the coast. This raises intractable problems of water supply, and of the heat pollution of water released to river or coastal ecosystems. And of course, we don't talk about sea level rise – but that poses a danger to all coastal nuclear plants.
Nuclear plants do not manage well in extreme temperatures, so heat waves would probably shut down nuclear plants, making them even more expensive and impractical.
Australia's absolute abundance of renewable energy sources – solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal provide 21st Century developing technologies, now able to provide the much touted 'baseload power'. This makes it even more unlikely that Australia would embark on the still untried new versions of an old 20th Century nuclear technology.
What has this got to do with any other country but Australia?
Why aren't foreigners staying out of our internal affairs?
This has nothing to do with anyone but Australia. Butt out!
Nuclear: the most expensive and delayed means of boiling water we don't have.
Nuclear: The only energy sector with repeatedly proven direct and indirect links with nuclear WMDs (the use of a fraction of which also poses a dire risk to our global climate in just hours).
Australia can instead look forward to a safer, sustainable future and attempt to address climate change primarily via energy conservation & efficiency. (Remember, globally, electricity is just one source of GHG emissions). Secondary to this, a combination of existing and emerging (and increasingly cleaner and cheaper) alternatives, many of which can be decentralised, minimizing transmission & distribution losses, with any interim gap addressed by methane-offset natural gas.
I am an American and I agree with you wholeheartedly! B)