Nuclear Power: Game Over

Professor Derek Abbott, a physicist and electrical engineer at the University of Adelaide, Australia, shows why the pipedreams of the pro-nuclear propagandists are precisely that. Using a wealth of empirical data illustrating global trends, he ably debunks the pro—nuclear arguments. Beyond Nuclear summarizes some of Prof. Abbotts’ key points:

On China: “Nuclear apologists point to China as a role model that is actively building a number of NPPs. The fact is that China has built $160 billion in overcapacity of coal plants that are unused. Will their NPPs [nuclear power plants), which are presently under construction, become similarly redundant? By contrast, in 2015, China invested five times more in renewables than nuclear power. These nuclear projects will take many years to complete, whereas renewables are deployed and put to immediate use.”

Getting uranium from seawater “is a fruitless suggestion as the uranium concentration is tiny, at 3.3 parts per billion. The energy it takes to lift a bucket of sea water 50 metres is equal to the energy you’d get from the uranium.”

Nuclear vs. renewables : “Nuclear power is large and centralised, with enormous entry and exit Costs. By contrast, renewables are made up of small modular units that yield a faster return on investment. The revolution we are witnessing is akin to the extinction of big powerful dinosaurs versus resilient swarms of small ants working in cooperation.”

Nuclear can’t solve renewable intermittency: “Generators designed for constant baseload operation are exactly what uncontrollable renewable generators don’t need. Uncontrollable renewables need flexible controlled sources of power such as hydroelectric power, pumped hydro, waste biofuels, solar thermal, and solar generated hydrogen or syngas to provide power when generation from intermittent renewable sources is insufficient to meet demand. Nuclear plants work best when they provide constant power output and they lack the agility to follow the variability of renewable generators.” ‘

Nuclear is not needed to solve grid instability: “First, nuclear power is not needed because controllable renewable sources already stabilise the grid. It is true that other renewable sources do give rise to grid management issues, but this is bread and butter for grid engineers. There are numerous research papers by grid engineers developing solutions for increased renewable penetration and none are suggesting the . need for nuclear power.” The full article is online: Derek Abbott, Oct-Dec 2016, “Nuclear Power: Game Over‘, Australian Quarterly,

www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/publications/NuclearPower_GameOver_DerekAbb0tt.pdf

We agree entirely with the above: it is true of all nuclear power plants, both existing and proposed, including the proposed Sizewell C nuclear plant to which we formally object herewith.

We say: NO NUCLEAR PLANTS ANYWHERE. ONLY THE BENIGN, NON- POLLUTING RENEWABLE FORMS OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MAINLY WIND, WAVE, SOLAR AND TIDAL, COUPLED WITH ENERGY CONSERVATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY.