Duggan Flanakin: The Fusion Race Heats Up

Nobody is saying it, but the advent of artificial intelligence and machine learning may be springboarding the increased intensity of the competition for nuclear fusion — which many are now saying is far less than “30 years away.” The burning question among the few who are fully aware of the stakes in this race is: “Who will get there first — and does first matter more than best?”

The greatest obstacle to fusion supplying the world with limitless electricity is learning how to maintain a balance between magnetic confinement and the severe heat (100 million degrees Celsius). Fusion produces cleaner energy than fission (its only byproducts are helium and other greenhouse gases—not radiation), and its fuels—deuterium and tritium—can easily be sourced from seawater and lithium. Scientists today are trying multiple ways to skin this cat.

Ronald Stein: The economic imperative for nuclear power

In an increasingly electricity-hungry world, nuclear power stands out as a cornerstone for sustainable economic growth, particularly for developing economies like South Africa. This article examines the economic rationale behind the adoption of nuclear power for electricity, with a focus on the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) and Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technologies as catalysts for industrial and economic growth, providing a lifeline out of poverty and instability.

Hannes Sarv: Global Warming is Mostly Caused By the Sun, Not Humans, Says Astrophysics Professor

“There’s no such thing as a scientific consensus,” Nir Shaviv, a Professor at the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem says in response to a question about what he thinks of the widespread claim that there is a scientific consensus on the anthropogenic nature of climate change. “In science, we deal with open questions and I think that the question of climate change is an open question. There are a lot of things which many scientists are still arguing about,” he explains.

Joanne Nova: First hint of energy squeeze and Big Tech drops the wind and solar purity.....

First hint of energy squeeze and Big Tech drops the wind and solar purity, and launches into nuclear power

All those sustainable dreams, gone pfft

Google, Oracle, Microsoft were all raving fans of renewable energy, but all of them have given up trying to reach “net zero” with wind and solar power. In the rush to feed the baby AI gargoyle, instead of lining the streets with wind turbines and battery packs, they’re all suddenly buying, building and talking about nuclear power. For some reason, when running $100 billion dollar data centres, no one seems to want to use random electricity and turn them on and off when the wind stops. Probably because without electricity AI is a dumb rock.

Joanne Nova: Renewable Fiasco - Had Germany kept nuclear it could have saved $600b and reduced emissions 73%

If the Germans just did nothing at all, it would have been Greener

Germany already had nuclear power in 2002, if they just kept it and didn’t build all the wind and solar plants, they wouldn’t have had to spend 697 Billion Euro on subsidies, and would have cut their emissions by 73% more.

Ian Bradford: The push to Net Zero with wind and solar is futile. We must invest in nuclear as soon as possible.

Nuclear reactors come in many different shapes and sizes. Most are large enough to power major cities and small reactors are being developed to complement them. Most use water to cool their cores, while other use gas or metals. About 425 reactors globally, ranging in size from 30MW to 1700MW are water cooled. There are two types of water cooled reactor: light water reactors, (which use normal water), and heavy water reactors. These are further divided into a boiling water type and a pressurised water nuclear reactor. Below is a diagram of a typical boiling water type.

Dr Oliver Hartwich: A tale of two energy futures

As Peter Dutton promotes his vision of a nuclear-powered Australia, New Zealanders should also be thinking about their country’s energy future. Given the right energy policy choices, New Zealand would have a chance to redefine its economic future. While Australia debates splitting atoms, New Zealand sits atop a geothermal goldmine.

An underlying question that Australia, and New Zealand have in common, concerns how open both countries want to be when it comes to accepting technological change.

Ian Bradford: Wake up NZ

We need to start building nuclear power stations if we are to avoid blackouts. 

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.

Bryan Leyland: "Things you know that ain't so” - hydropower

“Hydropower is safe and nuclear power stations are dangerous”

In fact, the reverse is the case. Per TW-year of electricity generated, the figures are:  for 0.04 deaths for nuclear, 1.4 for hydropower and 160 for coal-fired generation. (New Zealand generates about 0.005 TW-year of electricity per year.)

Large hydropower needs large dams – much larger than any in New Zealand – and they pose a major long-term threat to the environment and populations downstream.