2 ms·

>> 1. Vast swathes of uninhabited land can absorb some of the risks/fears associated with a nuclear accident > The nuclear plants need to be built near water,

>> 1. Vast swathes of uninhabited land can absorb some of the risks/fears associated with a nuclear accident > The nuclear plants need to be built near water, which means they're likely to end up near habitation. Would seawater work? Does Australia have any "vast swathes of uninhabited land" near the sea? > Like renewables, much of the cost of nuclear is in construction - unlike renewables, this has gone up not down over the years. IIRC, a big reason why nuclear plants cost so much to construct nowadays is that most reactors designs aren't produced in quantity, like they used to be.

marcosdumay 5y ago
Seawater is more expensive to work with, but it does work. You can almost no water too, it's just some more expenses. The thing is that nuclear is expensive by itself, anything you increase makes it less desirable. Anyway, AFAIK, nearly all of the uninhabited land on Australia is inside the continent. It's much easier to deploy solar and wind there than anything else.
aerostable_slug 5y ago
Note that in some areas, environmental regulation prevents once-through water cooling because wee-small creatures that go through the plant are killed. The outflow may also be problematic. Local (to me) example: Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant killed all the abalone in its discharge cove during its first hot run due to the increased water temperature. There were so many that before the plant the spot was known to locals as "abalone cove". You could rock pick to your heart's content and not even need a wetsuit. On the other hand, they do have rather fascinating sea life in that cove due to the higher temps there vs. the cold Pacific just a few feet away (they used to have a show-and-tell marine biology lab onsite for visitors to check out). Anyway, to relicense DCPP, the plant would likely need to switch to cooling using the signature big towers people associate with nuclear plants, which is obviously a titanic effort.

marcosdumay 5y ago

Seawater is more expensive to work with, but it does work. You can almost no water too, it's just some more expenses. The thing is that nuclear is expensive by itself, anything you increase makes it less desirable. Anyway, AFAIK, nearly all of the uninhabited land on Australia is inside the continent. It's much easier to deploy solar and wind there than anything else.

aerostable_slug 5y ago

Note that in some areas, environmental regulation prevents once-through water cooling because wee-small creatures that go through the plant are killed. The outflow may also be problematic. Local (to me) example: Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant killed all the abalone in its discharge cove during its first hot run due to the increased water temperature. There were so many that before the plant the spot was known to locals as "abalone cove". You could rock pick to your heart's content and not even need a wetsuit. On the other hand, they do have rather fascinating sea life in that cove due to the higher temps there vs. the cold Pacific just a few feet away (they used to have a show-and-tell marine biology lab onsite for visitors to check out). Anyway, to relicense DCPP, the plant would likely need to switch to cooling using the signature big towers people associate with nuclear plants, which is obviously a titanic effort.