Yes, I can already hear the screams from environmentalists about New Zealand being nuclear-free. But nuclear energy has already shown itself to be a much more effective and cost-efficient energy source than wind or solar. Developments have also prevented nuclear accidents or leaks from occurring and, contrary to popular belief, there is actually not that much nuclear waste.
The reason nuclear is such a taboo subject is due to its weaponisation. Unfortunately, that is the reality for all technology. Computers are something we use for everyday use but now cyberwarfare could become the future of conflicts; drones are used to film things and kill people and even communication technologies are used to coordinate attacks.
It is because of this focus on nuclear weapons that we missed out on the innovations in nuclear energy and how it is slowly becoming an energy source that is both cheap to run and produces much more energy than solar and wind. Our fear over nuclear accidents also meant we didn’t see the increasing safety protocols and technological developments to prevent them occurring again.
So how much does a nuclear power plant cost? Well there are a number of costs to consider but the two most important ones are the costs to build and run the plant. The cost to build a power plant is actually uncertain and is quite debatable, as it depends on the costs of material, regulatory costs and whatever taxes and levies have been applied. However, the best estimated cost to build is about $5000 to $8000 per kilowatt capacity. The same variables affect the cost of running a plant, as it depends on the cost of the source. According to the World Nuclear Association, to process a pound of uranium costs about 0.5-0.62 cents per kilowatt hour. While data have suggested an increase in these costs, this has been attributed to increasing health and safety measures and regulations. One study found that out of all countries using nuclear power, South Korea was the only country that has experienced a decline in costs for nuclear power. The low cost could also be the reason why the average energy bill in the US is 16.68 cents per kWh, which is half the New Zealand average of 33 cents per kWh.
However, despite the cost, what is important is the amount of energy it produces which can vary based on its size and capabilities, but it produces much more than wind and solar. According to the European Nuclear Society, the average nuclear power plant can produce 24GWh from 1kg of uranium-235. In contrast, a solar panel produces 550kWh per year while a wind turbine averages six million kWh per year. To be able to keep up with the 13.7 thousand GWh needed each year to power New Zealand would require about 616 wind turbines. Conversely a nuclear power plant would only need 570kg each year. Nuclear also has the guarantee of producing energy constantly because the sources will always be available to process, while wind and solar do not have the same certainty as they are weather dependent.
A major concern for running a nuclear power plant is waste management. Contrary to popular belief, there actually isn’t that much nuclear waste to be concerned about. An average reactor produces about 23–30 tonnes of waste each year. And of that waste, one third of it can be reprocessed, while the rest of it is safe enough to be deposited into geological repositories. While there is still some nuclear waste that is radioactive enough to be harmful, that is less than one per cent of the total amount. To manage this, this high-risk waste can be stored for about 40 years in a facility before the radioactivity has worn off to the point that it can be placed into repositories. We also need to be open to the possibility of innovations for recycling the waste, just as we are doing with plastic and glass.
The ultimate concern is the risk of nuclear accident. Opponents will often point to Chernobyl and Fukushima as examples of why we shouldn’t build a nuclear reactor. And yes, I do understand those concerns. But the reason they happened is because proper safety procedures were not followed. A UN report into Chernobyl found that the Soviet scientists broke 16 health and safety regulations that could have prevented the explosion. And a review of Fukushima found that the plant’s components and infrastructure had not been replaced since the 1960s. It should be said that the nuclear industry is just as concerned about preventing accidents as its critics, which is why there have been increasing safety regulations and technological developments.
We are at risk of our lowest income families going into energy poverty to keep up with the cost of living. We need energy for everything, from cooking to keeping our homes warm to keeping the lights on. And, in an increasingly technologically dependent society, it has become apparent that we need energy to work and to live. If we really want to make energy more affordable, perhaps it is time to look at alternatives like nuclear energy.
Dark Jester is political scholar with an interest in foreign interference. Traditional conservative. Came out of a family that fled communism and improved themselves thanks to capitalism but would consider himself a distributionist. This article was first published HERE
The reason nuclear is such a taboo subject is due to its weaponisation. Unfortunately, that is the reality for all technology. Computers are something we use for everyday use but now cyberwarfare could become the future of conflicts; drones are used to film things and kill people and even communication technologies are used to coordinate attacks.
It is because of this focus on nuclear weapons that we missed out on the innovations in nuclear energy and how it is slowly becoming an energy source that is both cheap to run and produces much more energy than solar and wind. Our fear over nuclear accidents also meant we didn’t see the increasing safety protocols and technological developments to prevent them occurring again.
So how much does a nuclear power plant cost? Well there are a number of costs to consider but the two most important ones are the costs to build and run the plant. The cost to build a power plant is actually uncertain and is quite debatable, as it depends on the costs of material, regulatory costs and whatever taxes and levies have been applied. However, the best estimated cost to build is about $5000 to $8000 per kilowatt capacity. The same variables affect the cost of running a plant, as it depends on the cost of the source. According to the World Nuclear Association, to process a pound of uranium costs about 0.5-0.62 cents per kilowatt hour. While data have suggested an increase in these costs, this has been attributed to increasing health and safety measures and regulations. One study found that out of all countries using nuclear power, South Korea was the only country that has experienced a decline in costs for nuclear power. The low cost could also be the reason why the average energy bill in the US is 16.68 cents per kWh, which is half the New Zealand average of 33 cents per kWh.
However, despite the cost, what is important is the amount of energy it produces which can vary based on its size and capabilities, but it produces much more than wind and solar. According to the European Nuclear Society, the average nuclear power plant can produce 24GWh from 1kg of uranium-235. In contrast, a solar panel produces 550kWh per year while a wind turbine averages six million kWh per year. To be able to keep up with the 13.7 thousand GWh needed each year to power New Zealand would require about 616 wind turbines. Conversely a nuclear power plant would only need 570kg each year. Nuclear also has the guarantee of producing energy constantly because the sources will always be available to process, while wind and solar do not have the same certainty as they are weather dependent.
A major concern for running a nuclear power plant is waste management. Contrary to popular belief, there actually isn’t that much nuclear waste to be concerned about. An average reactor produces about 23–30 tonnes of waste each year. And of that waste, one third of it can be reprocessed, while the rest of it is safe enough to be deposited into geological repositories. While there is still some nuclear waste that is radioactive enough to be harmful, that is less than one per cent of the total amount. To manage this, this high-risk waste can be stored for about 40 years in a facility before the radioactivity has worn off to the point that it can be placed into repositories. We also need to be open to the possibility of innovations for recycling the waste, just as we are doing with plastic and glass.
The ultimate concern is the risk of nuclear accident. Opponents will often point to Chernobyl and Fukushima as examples of why we shouldn’t build a nuclear reactor. And yes, I do understand those concerns. But the reason they happened is because proper safety procedures were not followed. A UN report into Chernobyl found that the Soviet scientists broke 16 health and safety regulations that could have prevented the explosion. And a review of Fukushima found that the plant’s components and infrastructure had not been replaced since the 1960s. It should be said that the nuclear industry is just as concerned about preventing accidents as its critics, which is why there have been increasing safety regulations and technological developments.
We are at risk of our lowest income families going into energy poverty to keep up with the cost of living. We need energy for everything, from cooking to keeping our homes warm to keeping the lights on. And, in an increasingly technologically dependent society, it has become apparent that we need energy to work and to live. If we really want to make energy more affordable, perhaps it is time to look at alternatives like nuclear energy.
Dark Jester is political scholar with an interest in foreign interference. Traditional conservative. Came out of a family that fled communism and improved themselves thanks to capitalism but would consider himself a distributionist. This article was first published HERE
11 comments:
Mixed feelings on this one; a cost-benefit analysis would be interesting to look over since we aren’t exactly flush with cash thanks to govt debt and low productivity. As for safety, probably not the issue it once was but we are called the Shaky Isles for a reason. Rocket Lab might be able to offer a practical way to dispose of spent fuel, if asked. Agree the concept should at least be discussed…oh, no financial shakedowns by iwi could be permitted, should such a project be undertaken.
Why not nuclear energy. It beats going down the same rabbit hole as Germany, England and Australia whose dalliance with green energy is crippling their respective economies. Unfortunately New Zealand lost its pioneering spirit years ago to become a cautious follower.
A couple of points. Nuclear reactors do not explode but ‘melt’ down. Fukushima melt down was a result of a tidal wave.
Humpty Dumpty said last week it wasn’t going to happen. Just like he said there wasn't one aspect of the Treaty Principles Bill he liked. No wonder his popularity is at an all time low.
Nuclear generation of electricity for propulsion and power needs is quite different to the creation of nuclear weapons. Of course that is only my opinion.
Most of the electorate don't know the difference between fission and fusion, or a chemical reaction versus a nuclear reaction. There is a strong case for technocratic decision-making here.
Nuke power generation has been proven to be safe for decades.
Sod the Luddiites - just make a call and get on with it - it's a sooner or later decision.
Some errors here. New solar is cheaper than new nuclear. Solar generation is higher than nuclear. Nuclear has its uses.
Good summary of the case for nuclear power. Probably the only residual issue is that New Zealand has a high risk of seismic instability, but so has Japan. However, the world has learned from Fukushima. Planes crash and kill people but they don't ban air travel. As with Fukushima, they find out what happened, and everybody is safer as a result. So surely modern reactors will have an automatic cut-off mechanism if a tremor were to be detected. Nuclear scientists are quite clever you know. But at the end of the day it's all about how much it costs to make the steam that drives the turbines, so it should all boil down to simple economics (pun entirely intended). Not outdated emotional virtue signalling.
At the risk of being repetitive, I will say it again. All we need do is buy an about-to-be-decommissioned US Navy nuclear powered vessel. Moor it quayside in Auckland and couple it to the national grid. Solves the "seismic" problem, start-up lead time and probably much cheaper than a new land-based plant. (The only NIMBYs would be Aucklanders, but who cares?). If anything were to start to go wrong, sail it to Mururoa and sink it. ..!!
NZer Ernest Rutherford split the atom, starting the whole nuclear industry.
Kiwis in WW2 invented the Bengazi burner in the Western Desert, and that is the inspiration for the nuclear Pebble Bed Reactor -which is an intrinsically safe process.
Show the Kiwi initiative and get on it.
With about 800 nuke power plants running safely, as they have for decades, what are the Greenies worried about ?
If Ardern and friends don't like the idea - well that's the perfect reason to do it, as it's well proven that she got nothing right.
Typing this on the Auckland Light Rail tram out to AKL Airport, yeah right...
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.