I'm a bit surprised that Australia has no nuclear plants while other countries along the Pacific Rim already do. Any idea why it hasn't happened? Domestic opposition or lack of need before now?
TL;DW: Coal, gas lobbies.
You just need to cool the steam with ambient air - water is better (more cooling) but hardly required.
And it's hardly "vast amounts", it's a small portion of the flow of a small river.
A coal plant also works better with a water source - there's no real difference here, you just need something to cool the steam at the end.
If coal can work in Australia so can nuclear.
A map of the country's population density may help bring this into perspective: https://i.redd.it/9mw8ttqqu0b41.jpg
There is no mainstream party that supports nuclear outside of the libertarian party (which gets single digit percentages at the ballots).
Remember, Ontario is 40% of Canada's population.
[1] https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr...
I trust StatsCan though, so your point is well made.
[1] https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2019/11/15/long-conside...
"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
I'm not really opposed to hydro, I only responded because the impact of the creation of reservoirs is likely not factored into the headline numbers.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-maga...
Usage profiles are indeed pertinent: Australians probably don't need dissipate energy in order for heating as Canadians do, but even this perspective isn't easy to grasp: heating thanks to gridpower is a thing in some nations without really cold seasons, France being one.
However the subject here is a gridpower-producing nuclear reactor, this IMHO sets a perimeter.
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.
(Sorry if this is really ignorant)
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.
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.
Alcoa is the largest employer in South Australia, and operates the world's largest integrated bauxite mining and aluminium refinery.
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?