As Martin Freeman points out, that recent AEMO study on renewables did little more than emphasise the enormous cost of a 100 per cent renewables system. Even then the study authors had to assume geothermal for 20 per cent or so of the network and gas turbines (using biofuel) for another chunk to make it work. It ain't going to happen.

Then there are the objections to renewables the Luddites trot out Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I don't see why a reactor would have to be placed near a coast - so much for tidal waves - and it would be built with a containment shield. So much for Chernobyl. As for Three Mile Island, okay the reactors are not likely to be built right next to a population center.

But realistically its politically impossible in Aus. They can't even build pulp mills here without concerted campaigns of misinforation scaring the socks of the public who are not use to dealing with technical information, and nuclear reactors already have PR image problems. Never going to happen.

Nuclear power would be fine and dandy if those slavering after big profits from generating and supplying it (including the mining of uranium) were made to internalise all the external costs. This would mean, first and foremost, insuring the community against damage rather than shunting the cleanup costs to the community as in Fukushima. Premiums which an insurance company would demand would be horrendous - but in that case the cost of nuclear power is horrendous and would need to be included in the retail price of a Kwh of delivered power. Maybe then the nuclear industry would lose its taboo on use of thorium.

The latest report from WNA (Updated March 2013) makes it clear that nuclear power generation is growing worldwide. It seems ridiculous for Australia to head in this direction when we have so much cheap coal. But if we really believe that fossil fuels are generating too much CO2 and that this is somehow linked to global warming, then I guess nuclear has to remain on the table as it is for 31 other countries?

“Today there are some 435 nuclear power reactors operating in 31 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of over 370 GWe. In 2011 these provided 2518 billion kWh, about 13.5% of the world's electricity”.

“Over 60 power reactors are currently being constructed in 13 countries plus Taiwan, notably China, South Korea and Russia”.

http://world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Plans-For-New-Reactors-Worldwide/#.UYYZxVt4aXQ

http://world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-and-Figures/World-Nuclear-Power-Reactors-and-Uranium-Requirements/#.UYYaQ1t4aXQ

"According to AEMO, to convert the NEM to a 100 per cent renewable system will cost at least $219 to $332 billion. This is excluding significant costs for the land (which could be as much as 5,000 sq kms) and augmentation of the distribution network. This is starting to sound worse than the recent high-speed train proposal from Melbourne to Brisbane. "

Good analogy. Unfortunately, the environmental activists don't see it that way. To them money is no object when their pet projects are considered.

They argue for abolition of efficient coal-based power generation, on the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming. They rely on unvalidated climate models , as they have no empirical scientific evidence to prove the hypothesis. Rigorous cost benefit analysis is foreign to them.

The suggestion that nuclear energy should be added to the mix will undoubtedly make them and many others see red.

"But realistically its politically impossible in Aus. They can't even build pulp mills here without concerted campaigns of misinforation scaring the socks of the public who are not use to dealing with technical information, and nuclear reactors already have PR image problems. Never going to happen.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 11:20:38 AM"

Which is good. It seems Australia, Germany and Italy are the only countries left where people have not yet been brainwashed by the atom guys. People in most of the other countries have already been confined to assisted thinking.

But I think I forgot Austria. At least have they published study from the University of Linz to calculate the real cost of nuclear power if it had to be insured instead of having the taxpayer pay for centuries to come.

http://www.anschober.at/politik/presse/1372/die-erste-oesterreichische-studie-ueber-die-milliardensubventionen-der-atomenergie-bringt-neue-hebel-fuer-die-oesterreichische-antiatom-politik

According to the study a kilowatt hour nuclear power would the be around 26 dollars - dollars, not cents.

Of course nuclear power plants are not required to have insurance.

Also the billions to be paid by future taxpayers for thousands of years to take care and protect the nuclear waste are not put aside by today's users of electricity but left to their grand-grand-grand... children who will have no choice but pay for what they ancestors use today.

How distasteful are those nuclear proponents to not even stop short of stealing from their unborn children and grand-children.

Augh come on Mark. Have a bit more faith in your fellow Australians :). They will see the light in the end. I’m hoping for starting the nuclear build in 2025 – even if it’s SMRs which might be easier to sell.