6 ms·

probably cause the entire continent of australia is about as big as the lower 48 states but has only a few more million people than the state of florida. the ci

probably cause the entire continent of australia is about as big as the lower 48 states but has only a few more million people than the state of florida. the cities are far more spread out. the investment would be very high and only benefit on small area

arcticbull 4y ago
Australia has a few large population clusters. Most people don't live in the interior due to the sweltering heat and lack of water. They live on the east/south-east seaboard (Brisbane-Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne-Adelade, clockwise). The reactors can be colocated with the people.
- ddeck 4y ago
  This is correct. 50% of Australia's population live in Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane (40% in the first two). The below image shows just how empty the vast majority of Australia really is: https://i.redd.it/9mw8ttqqu0b41.jpg https://i.redd.it/9mw8ttqqu0b41.jpg
s0rce 4y ago
Canada has them. Pretty much the same situation
- paranoidrobot 4y ago
  Apart from the whole vastly-differing-amounts-of-water thing.
  - synicalx 4y ago
    Nearly all of Australia's population centres are on the coast, Alice Springs being the most notable exception with a population of around 25k. And most of Australia's population is loosely clustered on or near the east coast, which already has a somewhat interconnected power grid (emphasis on sort of).
    - paranoidrobot 4y ago
      I'm aware of the population distribution. Only WA+NT are not connected to the national grid. The problem with having a nuclear power plant on the coast where there's sufficient reliable water is that nobody wants one in their back yard. (Yes there's parts of the WA/NT/QLD/SA coastlines where population drops to bugger all, but they're generally less suitable for all sorts of reasons) Putting them inland where they're still near major interstate grid connections runs into the water problem again. Which is a problem Canada doesn't have.
      - onethought 4y ago
        The water is closed loop right? Can’t you pump or even deliver the water by truck? (Sorry if this is really ignorant)
        paranoidrobot 4y ago
        I'm not a Nuclear Power physicist, but you can Google up images of a whole lot of them. There's at least one common feature that you see in all of them - the giant cooling towers, often pictured emitting large white fluffy steam clouds while they're operating. They're also all on massive permanent rivers, lakes or the ocean. Pumping/Delivering water for that purpose is basically not feasible.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- natmaka 4y ago
  Canada is a very different case: electricity sources are 2/3 renewables, mainly hydro (~60%). Nuclear: ~15%
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Canada is a big place. Depends on the area. Ontario, for instance, is almost 60% nuclear. [1] It has by far the lowest CO2 emissions per kWh in the country. Remember, Ontario is 40% of Canada's population. [1] https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-ontario.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr...
    - notmars 4y ago
      https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-quebec.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr... maybe?
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        Hydro is tough for a lot of reasons. It's pretty ecologically devastating, flooding large regions and turning fish into mulch. It can also produce as much climate impact as a fossil fuel plant - or more - largely due to methane and CO2 emissions from the newly flooded land. [1] I'm not 100% sure where the Quebec hydro mix actually lands due to the significant variability on a plant-by-plant basis, and I don't know if that's factored in or how it was amortized in the StatsCan link - this wholistic analysis is fairly new afaik. I trust StatsCan though, so your point is well made. [1] https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2019/11/15/long-considered-a-clean-energy-source-hydropower-can-actually-be-bad-for-climate/ https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2019/11/15/long-conside...
        natmaka 4y ago
        There are rules (releasing water...) and equipment aiming at reducing harm to aquatic life, even worst cases (migratory fishes). https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/improving-fish-migration-hydropower-dams https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation... "the rate of emissions per unit of electric generation from hydropower (excluding tropical reservoirs) is much lower than for fossil fuel technologies." Source: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML12090A850.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML12090A850.pdf
throwawaylinux 4y ago
Australia has abundant uranium, dry geologically stable uninhabited space, bauxite, iron ore, and thermal and coking coal. Australia really should have developed large steel and aluminum industries powered by coal and uranium, rather than shipping all the raw materials out with no value add.
- paranoidrobot 4y ago
  > Australia really should have developed large steel and aluminum industries powered by coal We did. BHP had massive steelworks in Newcastle and Wollongong (~150KM north and south of Sydney), aside from others. BHP found it was cheaper to do it in other countries where environmental, safety and labour laws weren't such as hassle to deal with (aka: Paying a living wage, avoid killing your workers, and limiting the impact you had on the surrounding population). Newcastle also had a massive Aluminium smelter - but again, cheaper to do it overseas. It's a repeating pattern.
  - shakna 4y ago
    We still do. Alcoa is the largest employer in South Australia, and operates the world's largest integrated bauxite mining and aluminium refinery.
onethought 4y ago
If only we could transmit electricity over long distances. You realise you're commenting on a post about Canada using Nuclear power, and all of the things you said about Australia also hold true for Canada?
- natmaka 4y ago
  We can transmit electricity over long distances thanks to (U)HVDC and it is more and more applied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects

arcticbull 4y ago

Australia has a few large population clusters. Most people don't live in the interior due to the sweltering heat and lack of water. They live on the east/south-east seaboard (Brisbane-Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne-Adelade, clockwise). The reactors can be colocated with the people.

ddeck 4y ago
This is correct. 50% of Australia's population live in Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane (40% in the first two). The below image shows just how empty the vast majority of Australia really is: https://i.redd.it/9mw8ttqqu0b41.jpg https://i.redd.it/9mw8ttqqu0b41.jpg

s0rce 4y ago

Canada has them. Pretty much the same situation

paranoidrobot 4y ago
Apart from the whole vastly-differing-amounts-of-water thing.
- synicalx 4y ago
  Nearly all of Australia's population centres are on the coast, Alice Springs being the most notable exception with a population of around 25k. And most of Australia's population is loosely clustered on or near the east coast, which already has a somewhat interconnected power grid (emphasis on sort of).
  - paranoidrobot 4y ago
    I'm aware of the population distribution. Only WA+NT are not connected to the national grid. The problem with having a nuclear power plant on the coast where there's sufficient reliable water is that nobody wants one in their back yard. (Yes there's parts of the WA/NT/QLD/SA coastlines where population drops to bugger all, but they're generally less suitable for all sorts of reasons) Putting them inland where they're still near major interstate grid connections runs into the water problem again. Which is a problem Canada doesn't have.
    - onethought 4y ago
      The water is closed loop right? Can’t you pump or even deliver the water by truck? (Sorry if this is really ignorant)
      - paranoidrobot 4y ago
        I'm not a Nuclear Power physicist, but you can Google up images of a whole lot of them. There's at least one common feature that you see in all of them - the giant cooling towers, often pictured emitting large white fluffy steam clouds while they're operating. They're also all on massive permanent rivers, lakes or the ocean. Pumping/Delivering water for that purpose is basically not feasible.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
natmaka 4y ago
Canada is a very different case: electricity sources are 2/3 renewables, mainly hydro (~60%). Nuclear: ~15%
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Canada is a big place. Depends on the area. Ontario, for instance, is almost 60% nuclear. [1] It has by far the lowest CO2 emissions per kWh in the country. Remember, Ontario is 40% of Canada's population. [1] https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-ontario.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr...
  - notmars 4y ago
    https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-quebec.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr... maybe?
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      Hydro is tough for a lot of reasons. It's pretty ecologically devastating, flooding large regions and turning fish into mulch. It can also produce as much climate impact as a fossil fuel plant - or more - largely due to methane and CO2 emissions from the newly flooded land. [1] I'm not 100% sure where the Quebec hydro mix actually lands due to the significant variability on a plant-by-plant basis, and I don't know if that's factored in or how it was amortized in the StatsCan link - this wholistic analysis is fairly new afaik. I trust StatsCan though, so your point is well made. [1] https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2019/11/15/long-considered-a-clean-energy-source-hydropower-can-actually-be-bad-for-climate/ https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2019/11/15/long-conside...
      - natmaka 4y ago
        There are rules (releasing water...) and equipment aiming at reducing harm to aquatic life, even worst cases (migratory fishes). https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/improving-fish-migration-hydropower-dams https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation... "the rate of emissions per unit of electric generation from hydropower (excluding tropical reservoirs) is much lower than for fossil fuel technologies." Source: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML12090A850.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML12090A850.pdf

throwawaylinux 4y ago

Australia has abundant uranium, dry geologically stable uninhabited space, bauxite, iron ore, and thermal and coking coal. Australia really should have developed large steel and aluminum industries powered by coal and uranium, rather than shipping all the raw materials out with no value add.

paranoidrobot 4y ago
> Australia really should have developed large steel and aluminum industries powered by coal We did. BHP had massive steelworks in Newcastle and Wollongong (~150KM north and south of Sydney), aside from others. BHP found it was cheaper to do it in other countries where environmental, safety and labour laws weren't such as hassle to deal with (aka: Paying a living wage, avoid killing your workers, and limiting the impact you had on the surrounding population). Newcastle also had a massive Aluminium smelter - but again, cheaper to do it overseas. It's a repeating pattern.
- shakna 4y ago
  We still do. Alcoa is the largest employer in South Australia, and operates the world's largest integrated bauxite mining and aluminium refinery.

onethought 4y ago

If only we could transmit electricity over long distances. You realise you're commenting on a post about Canada using Nuclear power, and all of the things you said about Australia also hold true for Canada?

natmaka 4y ago
We can transmit electricity over long distances thanks to (U)HVDC and it is more and more applied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects