by Dr Judy Ford, April 22, 2025
Australia is preparing for an election and one of the hotly debated topics relates to our future energy sources.
We have often been referred to as the lucky country and as far as energy choices are concerned, this luck is exceptional. We have vast deposits of minerals that can be used in any of the different energy systems. Most places, for most of the year, have abundant sunlight to support solar systems. We are surrounded by oceans that give us opportunities for wave-generated power and both our oceans and vast inland spaces could easily accommodate wind farms. In some areas we even have large areas of water that lend themselves to electricity generation and Sydney, my home city, is currently largely served by hydro-electric and highly polluting coal powered systems. Whichever choice we make, the coal must go!
Our upcoming election is very much focussed on which type of power systems we should select to go forward so I decided to try to inform myself about the options. Importantly, as our population continues to grow and people expect to live in larger houses and drive more and more motor vehicles, we need to consider new power options as well as replacing our old coal-fired power stations.
The current ‘hot debate’ between the political parties is ‘renewable energy’ versus ‘nuclear power’ but which is best suited for purpose, longevity and for the surrounding environment?
First – nuclear power: This is not generally regarded as a renewable energy source although nuclear power is ‘fairly clean’. The downsides of nuclear power are its use of uranium, which is a finite resource but more importantly its radioactive waste lasts for extraordinarily long time – I am informed that some of the waste only lasts tens of thousands of years while some lasts over 100,000 years! In addition, nuclear power plants must only be built on stable, ‘earthquake free’ ground (see the world map of earthquake activity above) and probably also in politically stable regions? Although the Additional Protocol of 1979 to the Geneva Conventions states that nuclear power plants should not be made the object of attack if such an attack could cause the release of dangerous forces and severe losses among the civilian population, enemies at war don’t always respect such Conventions!
I personally am very wary of nuclear power because of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011. I was invited to Chernobyl for an international meeting five years after the disaster and here I am (the tall one with a mop of dark hair) with others in front of the exploded Sarcophagus in my (then) mandatory Russian army uniform! The Sarcophagus was a structure built after the accident to lock in the 200 tons of radioactive lava-like corium, 30 tons of highly contaminated dust and 16 tons of uranium and plutonium that were produced by the ‘accident’.
International Radiation Scientists standing in front of the Chernobyl Sarcophagus (1991).
The massive Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011 was caused by an earthquake and related tsunami – so this Japanese disaster is a reminder that areas of the earth where earthquakes are possible are probably never suitable for nuclear power. It is easy to see on the world map that this includes much of the world! Two other major nuclear plant accidents include the Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961) but there are many more mostly radiological accidents that are recorded by the IAEA website which reports recent nuclear accidents[1].
Small modular reactors
Assuming that safety can be assured, it is possible that in the future we may see the introduction of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These smaller versions of nuclear power plants are quite like the power used on nuclear submarines and ships. These offer many benefits: Since they are much simpler structures than the larger reactors and rely on passive systems to shut them down – rather than human control – they are inherently simpler and safer. Not surprisingly they only generate about a fifth of the energy of larger reactors, they can be manufactured ‘off site’ and transported to their final destination. They can also be quite easily dismantled when they are no longer needed. Nevertheless, even if small reactors can be made with high safety controls, there is still the overwhelming problem of nuclear waste.
Whatever our thoughts on nuclear power, the overarching concerns are (1) nuclear waste, (2) relatively high cost of set-up and (3) devastating consequences of nuclear accidents. At this stage the USA has the greatest proportion of power (18%) supplied by nuclear reactors but according to world-nuclear.org many USA states are finding this difficult to finance.
Second: Renewable Power Systems
a. Natural Gas:
Natural gas is a naturally occurring compound of gaseous hydrocarbons, primarily methane, small amounts of higher alkanes, and traces of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, hydrogen sulphide and helium. Methane is a natural, non-toxic and non-carcinogenic by-product of animal digestion and vegetation decay. It has low carbon emissions and is the cleanest burning of all fossil fuels. Natural gas also produces the least amount of carbon dioxide, which is a major cause of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Natural gas is formed by the alteration of organic matter and this can be by biogenic or thermogenic processes.
b. Renewable Gas and Renewable Hydrogen:
Closely related to Natural Gas is the (under development) Renewable Gas (https://www.australiangasnetworks.com.au/). This product is currently used in manufacturing in South Australia and is under development for much wider usage. The great advantage of both these products is that they use waste plant, animal and other organic wastes as the primary material for producing the gas! So, renewable gas and hydrogen manage two problems simultaneously, i.e. waste re-usage and clean energy production.
c. Wave, wind and solar:
Coastal areas have a fantastic resource of wave energy that is continuously replenished naturally. Overall, it is predictable and consistent. It produces no greenhouse gas emissions nor air pollution and doesn’t damage land. Waves also have high energy density, so their potential production of electricity is high. The downside of wave energy capturing is the initial cost and overall maintenance costs due to the relatively harsh environment. Another possible negative might be effects on the marine ecosystems from noise, structures and the possibility of some type of ‘spillage’.
To date, this technology has been held back by considerable unforeseen challenges so it might never be a real contender!
d. Wind energy can be used in more areas than wave energy and offers several advantages, including being a clean and renewable source with low operating costs. It has been widely adopted by many countries The worldwide total cumulative installed electricity generation capacity from wind has increased rapidly and at the end of 2023, it amounted to over 1000 GW. Denmark has adopted wind at a higher rate than any other country and in 2023, it produced 58% of its electricity from wind. Since 2010, most of the growth in wind power has occurred in China and India, and China alone had over 40% of the world’s capacity in 2023!
Wind power’s share of worldwide electricity usage in 2023 was 7.8%, up from 7.3% from the prior year. Amusingly, in November 2018, Scotland generated more wind power than the country’s electricity consumption during the month!
The high rate of adoption by so many countries supports that wind power is highly effective and generally acceptable. However, like wave energy it also has some drawbacks, such as high initial costs, potential environmental impacts, and the fact that wind is not always available. Moreover, wind energy is not without problems. There have been reports of negative side effects from people living very close to wind farms and some problems experienced by marine animals from wind turbines in oceans. Both birds and bats have collided with turbines and there have been some complaints about noise pollution, visual impacts on the landscape, and potential disruptions to marine life in offshore wind farms. Manufacturers are working to overcome or at least reduce these problems as wind is a resource that can be used safely in many different environments.
e. Solar Power is possibly the most ‘attractive’ from of natural energy (even if you don’t like the look of the collectors) in that harnessing it is ‘simpler’. I was lucky enough to live in a home (in Adelaide) with solar panels for many years. It was the very early days, and I was encouraged to invest in panels by my ‘environmental PhD students’. As this was early days in the technology and I didn’t have a battery, all my excess power went into ‘the grid’ and I used the normal power whenever solar wasn’t available. In those days, since we were paid for the electricity that we contributed to the grid, I found that I made a profit on my years’ electricity each year!
Solar is very environmentally friendly and apart from the obvious need to replace panels (and somehow recycle them) when they wear out, the energy system itself is fantastic. One problem however is the space that the collection panels require, and I wonder whether this might be reduced by (very clever) 3-dimensional design? The other major issue is that solar power needs sun, and some geographical locations just don’t have enough access to sun unless someone can invent a safe system that works from (say) a group of mini satellites?
In conclusion
Although there is considerable research to be done, there are many different options going forward. The world is such a diverse geological and geographical landscape that I think we probably need a diversity of systems and that certainly at this stage, there is no one right option! Nevertheless, it seems to me that there are so many different options emerging in ‘renewables’ that we probably can use a number of different renewables to solve our current and future energy challenges.
If you would like to read my previous blogs and receive future blogs, please add your name on my website drjudyford.com.
- [1] “IAEA Scientific and Technical Publications of Special Interest”. Pub.iaea.org. Archived from the original on 2017-05-03. Retrieved 2016-04-07.