I AM surprised so many environmentalists seem opposed to nuclear power when it is the only environmentally friendly way to achieve net zero before 2050. That is why it has been adopted as policy by the Greens Party in Finland.
There is no evidence that nuclear reactors damage the environment.
In fact, fish, animals and birds all thrive around them.
Instead, we should be more worried about the environmental damage caused by renewables.
Where are the complaints about the bulldozing of huge tracts of native vegetation and wildlife habitats to make way for solar farms and their fields of batteries?
Like the 85-hectare Big Battery near Geelong with 210 batteries standing 2.8m high on big concrete platforms so that a fire in one doesn’t spread further – as happened in July 2021.
What about the destruction of habitat to build the huge concrete bases of wind turbines on land and in the sea?
The Associated Press reported that, in the United States alone, wind turbines kill more than 573,000 birds each year, including federally protected species like bald eagles and golden eagles.
Overseas studies show that the noise pollution of wind turbines disrupts key behaviours of birds, introducing potential shifts in bird population dynamics, causing increased predation, dwindling mating success and reduced survival rates.
On March 26, 25 Renew Economy reported that the environmental study on the Great Eastern wind project in Bass Strait “has identified 59 threatened and migratory marine species including albatrosses, petrels, tern and fairy prion, 29 shorebirds and migratory land birds, eight threatened marine mammals including the pygmy blue whale and southern right whale, three marine turtles and six migratory fish species, etc…..”
It goes on to list onshore threatened species.
What about the thousands of square kilometres of native bushland currently being removed to install pylons to carry the power from remote areas at a cost of $10 million per kilometre?
Recycling of chemicals is a far more complex, difficult and expensive task than the simple recycling of plastics and glass by remelting. Or the repulping of paper and cardboard.
A recent article by the American Solar Recycling Company spells it these costs.
“Throwing panels away hurts our environment badly. Every 205 tons of solar PV waste in landfills releases about 2039 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. The waste of silver, copper, and silicon also makes it harder to build new panels.”
Studies show an $18 per panel fee over 12 years could create a profitable recycling industry by 2032.
Have these annual USD18 per panel fees (AUD28) been included in the costing of renewables?
There is no doubt as to who will be paying them!
Batteries are worse.
Atmos is one of the leading renewable energy companies in the world and operates several large facilities in Australia.
Atmos Financials had this to say, “A carbon footprint can be defined as the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are associated with consumption.”
Nuclear power plants have the lowest carbon footprint for an energy source, estimated to be nine grams of CO2e per kilowatt hour produced.
And, unlike solar or wind, nuclear works 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for 60 years or more.
Then there is the fire danger (apart from those at recycling plants).
While their fire risk is considered low, the possibility of a fire getting into the bush and out of control cannot be totally dismissed.
How ironic that an invention designed to reduce CO2 emissions might be the cause of colossal amounts being discharged into the atmosphere!
According to DCCEEW, the Black Summer Bushfires of 2019-2020 released about 830 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.
That is more than the combined output of all the Australian fossil fuel power stations over six years! (141,268,605 tonnes per year- Australian Government Clean Energy Regulator Report).
The costly damage caused by renewables has been overlooked or downplayed and it is time people were made aware that nuclear power is a far more environmentally friendly solution to our large-scale power requirements than solar or wind.
I am not against renewables as such. They are useful to reduce bills in domestic situations and small businesses. I have solar panels on my own roof.
But we must call out the damage to the environment caused by sacrificing vast tracts of bush and valuable farmland to build huge, ugly and expensive fields of renewables in the vain hope that they will provide the reliable power Australia needs in future.
If we genuinely want a carbon-free source of reliable power, nuclear is the only way to go.
Anton Gosselin, Newborough