Two articles ago, I wrote about the fact that there was nothing good about wind turbines, and the same could be applied to large solar farms. The inevitable backlash against wind power started in Germany, and it is spreading fast. The fact that chaotically intermittent wind power can’t be delivered as and when power consumers need it, means the wanton destruction of pristine wilderness, bucolic landscapes, rural communities, and millions of birds and bats (including many species on the brink of extinction), is very hard to justify.
In Germany, REAL environmentalists are mounting a well-oiled revolt against the destruction of forests- the natural habitat of apex predators like the endangered Red Kite. Environmentalists are also furious at the fact that Kites, Eagles, and dozens of threatened bat species are being sliced and diced with impunity across Europe. Rural residents, driven mad in their homes or driven out of them, by practically incessant turbine generated low frequency noise and infra sound, have taken their cases to law seeking injunctions and damages.
The result is that new wind farm construction in Germany has ground to a halt.
Michael Shellingberger is rated as one of America’s top greens. He is an example of what happens when environmentalism meets common sense. He said: “Countries pioneering renewable energy are facing a ‘crisis in energy production’. The pro-nuclear environmentalist said countries with a high concentration of renewables, like Germany, are struggling with the cost of energy because wind turbines and solar panels are not able to power modern economies.
The Germans have seen their electricity prices rise by 50% over the last decade. Germany had proposed to spend $580 million on renewable by 2025, and would need to spend another $4 trillion to get wind and solar to 100%. At present Germany is just 35% renewable. Germany has been phasing out nuclear, trying to do renewables. France has stayed with nuclear at 75% of its electricity mix and they are actually the world climate leader and world environmental leader and they are doing it with nuclear power.
Thanks to their new nuclear power plants, the Finns went from suffering among Europe’s highest power prices to enjoying it lowest. They now pay a mere fraction of what wind and solar obsessed German neighbours are forced to pay for an ideological and delusional obsession. When Finland fired up its 1600MW Olkiluoto 3 nuclear plant in April 2023 power users were bound to notice the average spot electricity prices dropped from €245.98 per MWh in December 2022 to €60 per MWh in April 2023.
The photo shows the Finn nuclear power station.
Italy has now joined Europe’s sudden and sensible nuclear power push. There is really no choice between always on, ever reliable nuclear and chaotically intermittent wind and solar. Last year, Italy’s Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni reversed her country’s legislated moratorium against the cleanest and most reliable form of power generation there is Meloni’s move makes way for the reactivation of 3 plants shuttered after the moratorium took effect. In addition, there are plans to build new plants, as well as tapping into the latest small modular reactor technology. Now the reversal is being followed up with legislation aimed at delivering a nuclear powered future for power starved Italians. Nuclear energy offers a stable, reliable source of power that can reduce dependence on external entities , the weather, and unpredictable global market shifts.
Central to Italy’s nuclear strategy is the adoption of small modular reactors-(SMR’s). Unlike traditional nuclear reactors, SMR’s offer a range of benefits that align well with Italy’s strategic and environmental goals. These reactors are designed to be built faster due to their modular nature, which allows for construction in controlled factory settings and assembly on site, leading to reduced construction times and potentially lower costs. Additionally, SMR’s are considered safer due to their smaller size and innovative safety features. In NZ they would be a very important back-up for our hydro when there is exceptionally high demand for power.
By investing in advanced nuclear reactors, Italy is positioning itself as a leader in sustainable energy production. These moves would fit into a positive strategy regardless of whether or not Carbon Dioxide emissions are an issue at all.
The picture below shows a typical Italian nuclear power station. The white “smoke” from the cooling tower is actually just steam. White smoke on TV is often portrayed as pollution from chimneys. White smoke is usually just steam.
Central to Italy’s nuclear strategy is the adoption of small modular reactors-(SMR’s). Unlike traditional nuclear reactors, SMR’s offer a range of benefits that align well with Italy’s strategic and environmental goals. These reactors are designed to be built faster due to their modular nature, which allows for construction in controlled factory settings and assembly on site, leading to reduced construction times and potentially lower costs. Additionally, SMR’s are considered safer due to their smaller size and innovative safety features. In NZ they would be a very important back-up for our hydro when there is exceptionally high demand for power.
By investing in advanced nuclear reactors, Italy is positioning itself as a leader in sustainable energy production. These moves would fit into a positive strategy regardless of whether or not Carbon Dioxide emissions are an issue at all.
The picture below shows a typical Italian nuclear power station. The white “smoke” from the cooling tower is actually just steam. White smoke on TV is often portrayed as pollution from chimneys. White smoke is usually just steam.
Sweden has also embraced nuclear and has joined Europe’s rejection of wind and solar. In the 1980’s the Swedes set out to ditch nuclear power and meet a 100% renewable energy target. Now in the mother of all reversals, Sweden has decided to follow its neighbour Finland with its own move towards safe, reliable and affordable nuclear power. Sweden is now looking to build more nuclear power stations after its parliament formally abandoned its 100% renewable energy target to meet net zero by 2045. “We need more energy production, we need clean energy and we need a stable energy system,” Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson said in parliament.
British lobby group Net Zero watch, which describes the net zero road maps of Western nations as ‘utopian and unsustainable,’ welcomed the move In recent weeks. It blasted the Bank of England for spending £150,000 to measure the ‘carbon’ footprint of plastic banknotes. It says that “the net zero plans envisioned by the International Energy Agency (IEA)- which is the basis of Canada’s own net zero efforts – are dangerously expensive and will result in painful reductions in living standards for all but the richest, as well as national weakness, societal instability and the eventual failure of the ‘decarbonisation’ effort.”
Just imagine the teeth–gnashing of Swedish child climate activist Greta Thunberg at the Swedish announcement!!
The government’s announcement that it is ditching Sweden’s long legislated plans for 100% renewables by 2040 because the country needed a stable energy system, is a significant blow to the hitherto unchallenged march to renewables at least among Western nations.
How does a nuclear power station work?
British lobby group Net Zero watch, which describes the net zero road maps of Western nations as ‘utopian and unsustainable,’ welcomed the move In recent weeks. It blasted the Bank of England for spending £150,000 to measure the ‘carbon’ footprint of plastic banknotes. It says that “the net zero plans envisioned by the International Energy Agency (IEA)- which is the basis of Canada’s own net zero efforts – are dangerously expensive and will result in painful reductions in living standards for all but the richest, as well as national weakness, societal instability and the eventual failure of the ‘decarbonisation’ effort.”
Just imagine the teeth–gnashing of Swedish child climate activist Greta Thunberg at the Swedish announcement!!
The government’s announcement that it is ditching Sweden’s long legislated plans for 100% renewables by 2040 because the country needed a stable energy system, is a significant blow to the hitherto unchallenged march to renewables at least among Western nations.
How does a nuclear power station work?
The diagram is of a boiling water reactor. The nuclear reaction takes place in the reactor vessel. This produces much heat which boils the water and produces steam. Pipes feed the steam directly to a turbine connected to a generator, which produces electricity. The electricity is fed through power lines to the houses. Unused steam is condensed back to water and reused in the heating process.
The basic fuel used in the reactor vessel is Uranium. Usually, pellets of uranium oxide are arranged in tubes to form fuel rods. In an average reactor, there may be 51,000 fuel rods. A neutron source is needed to get the reactor going. Often this is Beryllium mixed with Polonium. An alpha particle emitter such as radium is also required. The alpha particles cause a release of neutrons from the Beryllium.
The basic fuel used in the reactor vessel is Uranium. Usually, pellets of uranium oxide are arranged in tubes to form fuel rods. In an average reactor, there may be 51,000 fuel rods. A neutron source is needed to get the reactor going. Often this is Beryllium mixed with Polonium. An alpha particle emitter such as radium is also required. The alpha particles cause a release of neutrons from the Beryllium.
The diagram shows a typical fission reaction with Uranium. The bottom number is the atomic number (number of protons), and the top number is the mass number-the total number of neutrons and protons. A neutron (particle with no charge), strikes the Uranium isotope and splits it into two isotopes, Barium and Krypton, the combined weight of which is less than that of the Uranium isotope. (An isotope is an atom with a different number of neutrons than usual.)The loss of mass is released as heat energy using the famous Einstein equation E = mc2 where E is the energy released, m is the mass lost, and c is the speed of light. The energy from just one collision is very small but considerable after multiple collisions. Notice from the diagram that neutrons are also produced. These neutrons can go on to make more collisions with Uranium. If this is allowed to go on uncontrolled then we have a chain reaction and the end result is an atomic bomb. It is the control rods usually of cadmium inserted into the reactor which stop the reaction from becoming an out of control chain reaction.
I have done the calculation for the energy produced by 1kg of U235. It turns out that 1kg of Uranium puts out a bit over 2 million times the energy from 1kg of coal.
In the core of the reactor is a moderator, often just water and this slows down the emitted neutrons so that they can cause more fission. Fission is the splitting of an atom into two lighter atoms.
Control rods are used in the reactor to control the rate of reaction. They can be inserted to slow it down or withdrawn to speed it up.
A fluid-water often, is circulated through the core so as to transfer heat from it. The reactor vessel is a pressure vessel made of robust steel.
The structure around the reactor and associated steam generators which is designed to protect it from outside intrusion and to protect those outside from the effects of radiation in case of any serious malfunction inside. It is typically a metre thick concrete and steel structure.
A significant industry initiative is to develop accident-tolerant fuels which are more resistant to melting under conditions such as those in the Fukushima accident, and with the cladding more resistant to oxidation with Hydrogen formation at very high temperatures under such conditions.
Improved designs of nuclear power reactors are constantly being developed internationally. The first so called Generation 3 advanced reactors have been operating in Japan since 1996. These have now evolved further. Typically, the life of a third generation reactor is 60 years. Newer advanced reactors now being built have simpler designs which are intended to reduce capital cost. They are more fuel efficient and are inherently safer. Many new designs are small.
A reactor can potentially change its output from 25% to 100% in less than 30 minutes.
Small Nuclear Reactors
Small Nuclear Reactors (SMR’s), are advanced nuclear reactors which have a power capacity of 300 MW (Mega Watts) per unit. Many of the benefits of SMR’s are inherently aligned to the nature of the design-small and modular. They can be sited on locations not suitable for larger power plants. Prefabricated units of SMR’s can be manufactured and then shipped and installed on site, making them more affordable to build than larger reactors. SMR’s offer savings in cost and construction time. SMR’s would be ideal for rural areas. They can serve as back-up when existing power sources cannot cope. They can be built and operating within 3 years. They also may require less frequent refuelling, somewhere between 3 and 7 years compared to 1 to 2 years for conventional plants.
The vast majority of waste from nuclear power plants is not very radioactive and for many decades has been responsibly managed and disposed of. Highly radioactive waste is put in caves- some of which are constructed. The waste is then carefully sealed in.
I have done the calculation for the energy produced by 1kg of U235. It turns out that 1kg of Uranium puts out a bit over 2 million times the energy from 1kg of coal.
In the core of the reactor is a moderator, often just water and this slows down the emitted neutrons so that they can cause more fission. Fission is the splitting of an atom into two lighter atoms.
Control rods are used in the reactor to control the rate of reaction. They can be inserted to slow it down or withdrawn to speed it up.
A fluid-water often, is circulated through the core so as to transfer heat from it. The reactor vessel is a pressure vessel made of robust steel.
The structure around the reactor and associated steam generators which is designed to protect it from outside intrusion and to protect those outside from the effects of radiation in case of any serious malfunction inside. It is typically a metre thick concrete and steel structure.
A significant industry initiative is to develop accident-tolerant fuels which are more resistant to melting under conditions such as those in the Fukushima accident, and with the cladding more resistant to oxidation with Hydrogen formation at very high temperatures under such conditions.
Improved designs of nuclear power reactors are constantly being developed internationally. The first so called Generation 3 advanced reactors have been operating in Japan since 1996. These have now evolved further. Typically, the life of a third generation reactor is 60 years. Newer advanced reactors now being built have simpler designs which are intended to reduce capital cost. They are more fuel efficient and are inherently safer. Many new designs are small.
A reactor can potentially change its output from 25% to 100% in less than 30 minutes.
Small Nuclear Reactors
Small Nuclear Reactors (SMR’s), are advanced nuclear reactors which have a power capacity of 300 MW (Mega Watts) per unit. Many of the benefits of SMR’s are inherently aligned to the nature of the design-small and modular. They can be sited on locations not suitable for larger power plants. Prefabricated units of SMR’s can be manufactured and then shipped and installed on site, making them more affordable to build than larger reactors. SMR’s offer savings in cost and construction time. SMR’s would be ideal for rural areas. They can serve as back-up when existing power sources cannot cope. They can be built and operating within 3 years. They also may require less frequent refuelling, somewhere between 3 and 7 years compared to 1 to 2 years for conventional plants.
The vast majority of waste from nuclear power plants is not very radioactive and for many decades has been responsibly managed and disposed of. Highly radioactive waste is put in caves- some of which are constructed. The waste is then carefully sealed in.
These are artists concepts of proposed small nuclear reactors. The one above for Canada and the one below a Westinghouse model for the USA. They are pleasant on the eye and it should be noted how little land they take up compared with those large wind and solar farms.
Fusion has been obtained in the USA and in the UK., but at this stage only of short duration. Fusion is the combining of two elements into one by the application of much heat and or pressure. The temperature required for fusion is of the order of 100 million degrees C. Obviously having a normal container to hold the two elements in a temperature of this magnitude is not possible, so magnetic fields are used to hold the particles, which form a plasma. Alternatively, lasers are used to compress small quantities of the fusion components putting them under extreme pressure. The single isotope produced by fusing two is lighter than the combined weight of the two. As in fission, the loss of mass equates to an energy release. Fusion reactions produce much heat energy, with radioactive waste with a short half life, so storage is not a problem. After a relatively small number of years most of the radioactivity has gone from the waste. At present, a new fusion reactor is being built in France. Fusion will eventually be the answer to our energy needs.
While NZ continues to resist building nuclear power stations and still pushes for unreliable wind and solar which are quickly losing favour in Europe and the USA, in Australia propaganda is rife. The Liberal/National Federal opposition are now backing nuclear power. The Labour/Green alliance is looking to run as much interference as possible in an effort to assist their paymasters (construction and electrical trade unions and wind and solar outfits). Australia’s CSIRO was once committed to advancing science and technology using objective and critical analysis. Unfortunately, The CSIRO has become a little more than a propaganda wing of the wind and solar cult with the singular object of denying Australians safe, reliable and affordable nuclear power.
Until fusion comes on stream, which is better. Power 24/7. Power only when the wind blows and the sun shines. Much less valuable land taken up or hundreds of acres. A life of at least 60 years or only 15 years. Sealing a small amount of radioactive waste in a cave or burying millions of tonnes of toxic turbines and solar panels which will be there leaching chemicals for a very long time. The answer seems very clear.
While NZ continues to resist building nuclear power stations and still pushes for unreliable wind and solar which are quickly losing favour in Europe and the USA, in Australia propaganda is rife. The Liberal/National Federal opposition are now backing nuclear power. The Labour/Green alliance is looking to run as much interference as possible in an effort to assist their paymasters (construction and electrical trade unions and wind and solar outfits). Australia’s CSIRO was once committed to advancing science and technology using objective and critical analysis. Unfortunately, The CSIRO has become a little more than a propaganda wing of the wind and solar cult with the singular object of denying Australians safe, reliable and affordable nuclear power.
Until fusion comes on stream, which is better. Power 24/7. Power only when the wind blows and the sun shines. Much less valuable land taken up or hundreds of acres. A life of at least 60 years or only 15 years. Sealing a small amount of radioactive waste in a cave or burying millions of tonnes of toxic turbines and solar panels which will be there leaching chemicals for a very long time. The answer seems very clear.
Ian Bradford, a science graduate, is a former teacher, lawyer, farmer and keen sportsman, who is writing a book about the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.
11 comments:
Pop one in my backyard, any day.
How long have we got Ian? most of our hydro power stations must be well into their life expectancy of 60-100 years?
In 1919 Ernest Rutherford split the atom, a world first. 125 years on Genisis has announced to the nation that it intends to save the planet by building windmills and solar panels. I remind readers that windmills were developed by the Persians in 500- 900 AD. I also advise that thousands of acres of Solar panels will have to compete with the mindless planting of carbon pine forests on our diminishing arable farmland in the name of extreme lunacy. The inmates are certainly in charge of the asylum.
Sadly our Greenies have indoctrinated so many naive Kiwis that they will never consider some of the very safe modern nuclear options such as the Pebble Bed Reactor, or the future fusion reactors.
All they see are images from films of nuke explosions and the consequences - so far from reality.
Hi John,
The climate alarmists are still pushing global warming. It was a NIWA person on the radio an hour or two ago who said Napier recorded 25deg c yesterday. he said that was indicative of global warming. Absolute rubbish. One temperature in one place is not indicative of anything in particular. If Professor Zharkova is correct and we have already started on a mini ice age then we need more power urgently. I can say it has been very cold in the Sth. Island, but bit too early to put any conclusions on it. However, with increasing population and more Ev's we will need more power very quickly. The govt. has said it proposes to put in a large number of new charging points for Ev's, together with charging at home this will take a considerable amount of power. We cannot rely on unreliable wind and solar.
Pretty much all you said is rubbish. Germany isn't in a backlash and are running more and more of their economy on renewables. Nuclear is the most expensive way to generate power and typically takes more than 10 years to build and start up, and has one of the worst track records going over budget and over time. Just imaging being at the mercy of say the Uk/France nuclear fuel supply chain - which has a demonstrated history of falsifying safety records and not delivering on time. Way to go NZ - over time, massively over budget, and subject to supply chain vagaries at the bottom of the world. Hey, when did that happen recently?
This article is wishful thinking at best, delusion at worst. Please use facts, not tendentious bullshit.
AnonTeslaowner is back and still licking his investment wounds I see.
anonTeslaOwner
The facts are that Germany is not getting far with their renewable sources, so much so they started building new coal fired power stations a couple of years ago and opening new coal mines to feed them.
Right on Rob.
Interesting article thanks ian
I doubt that NZ needs nuclear power. With a bit more hydro, geothermal, land-based wind and solar, plus a large stockpile of coal ready and waiting at Huntly for the infrequent dry years, we will be fine. Huntly would be upgraded to the latest carbon capture technology.
Need to bear in mind that land transport won’t be all EVs. Ultra efficient non-polluting PEHVs utilising ammonia, hydrogen or petrol are being developed by Toyota and others. The current EVs are merely a transition to a much more convenient, cost effective and eco friendly solution for our personal transport needs.
Post a Comment