Vogtle units 1-4 are now the largest generator in the US with nearly 5 GW output. According to Wikipedia there are 12 AP1000 reactors online or under construction and 19 more planned. If that model is supposed to be a dud somebody didn't get the memo. As we may see with Snowy 2 big projects have big problems but it could work out well in the end.

According to Albo's green manufacturing vision Australia is supposed to have all this heavy industry and value adding running on wind and solar. In contrast I think when the subsidies run out existing industries will shut down. Increasingly China will make more of our materials-supplied steel and aluminium but the emissions won't be on our books.

The renewables-are-so-cheap lobby has failed to explain why unrebated power prices have gone up 40% since 2022. Or why France has the cheapest and cleanest electricity in Europe. However I think prefabricated SMRs are the way to go for Australia not the gigawatt monsters of France and the US.

CSIRO Report Finds Renewables Cheaper Than Nuclear
The review analysed the CSIRO and Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)’s GenCost report against the Lazard Review and the Mineral Council of Australia (MCA)’s research into Small Modular Nuclear Reactors.

The report has these key findings:

The research confirmed that nuclear energy is up to six times more expensive than renewable energy and even on the most favourable reading for nuclear, renewables remain the cheapest form of new-build electricity.

The safe operation of nuclear power requires strong nuclear safety regulations and enforcement agencies, none of which exist in Australia. Establishing these frameworks and new bodies would take a long time and require significant government funding which would ultimately be borne by taxpayers.

Nuclear may be even higher cost than currently forecast as waste management and decommissioning of nuclear plants have been omitted by cost calculations in the relevant research available.

The economic viability of nuclear energy will further diminish as more wind, solar and battery storage enters the grid, in line with legislated targets. Put simply, nuclear plants are too heavy and too slow to compete with renewables and can’t survive on their own in Australian energy markets.

Random will CSIRO admit they're not always right when hydrogen power stations turn out to be duds? If by some miracle we don't have 82% renewable energy by 2030 I wonder who they will blame. So far Albo can get away with blaming Russia and Dutton for the fact we still have 60% coal fired electricity. Not a good look for a scientific institution if CSIRO stoops that low.

There's no such thing as "renewable" ! The present "green" technology consists of absolutely no component that is actually renewable. The disposal of this renewable infrastructure is & will be an even greater problem in a few years if people don't start getting away from it & go for technology that has far less associated pollution.
Why people still believe this "renewable" nonsense in 2024 is proof of indoctrination.

HOW MUCH BATTERY STORAGE?

..from an edited version of the Global Warming Foundation report. Note that big batteries are 141 times as costly as LNGas storage.

There are some very dodgy assumptions that CSIRO makes about nuclear power, not least a service life of about a third of what might be possible. Increase the service life to real world examples and the cost estimate for nuclear would be much lower.

The joke is that for the cost of Snowy 2.0, storing a week of continuous 2.2 gigawatt supply, Australia could build nuclear supplying 2.2 gigawatts over 90% of the time for perhaps the next century.

Why isn't ANSTO doing the reports on the viability of nuclear power?