David McMullen,

Yes to both questions.

When the impediments are removed, the cost of nuclear will reduce as it has done for all other electricity generation technologies over the past >100 years. A cost reduction of about 10% per capacity doubling is reasonable based on history.

Recall that regulatory ratcheting has increased the cost of nuclear power by a factor of four to 1990 and probably doubled that since. Also recall that nuclear is at the very beginning of development. Current reactors use less than 1% of the available energy in the fuel. Over time this will increase to approaching 100%. The cost reduction potential is enormous. All this potential is effectively blocked.

Renewables are receiving far more public subsidy per MWh than nuclear. So you should pose your question to the renewables advocates. Nuclear is inherently cheap per MWh and the fuel is effectively unlimited. Renewables are very expensive, low energy density and therefore not sustainable (see ERoEI http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/ )

When we remove the impediments to low cost nuclear and move to small modular reactors innovation can be unleashed and competition will reduce costs, improve fit-for-purpose and develop products for each niche market segment. Of course all this will take time. Until the impediments are removed the effect of the impediments on costs needs to be offset by subsidies. That is necessary so mankind can reap the benefits – it’s best for human well-being.

Recall that nuclear is about the safest way to generate electricity. If nuclear replaced coal overnight over a million fatalities per year would be avoided. With cheaper electricity, it would be rolled out faster to the billions of people who do not have electricity saving millions more fatalities per year.

The anti-nukes are blocking the world from receiving all the benefits.

Peter Lang

You exhibit the regrettable tone of a fervent engineer for whom all considerations but mechanical efficiency are superfluous.

Where you say: "When the impediments are removed,"

Is it not more accurate to say: "When the great body of political, social, environmental and national security .concerns with nuclear are resolved in Australia?

I say "If" because increasingly in the US and Europe it is taking decades from bright idea to reactor completion.

"If" because I'm 53 and I don't foresee a complete reactor in Australia before I may croak at 80 :)

Nuclear eventually but not in the lifetimes of many in Australia.

Pete

Sorry Pete, but you & the rest of the current population may have little say in it.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, there is a Russian fleet sailing around out there, just off our coast. It is undoubtable nuclear armed. There is not a damn thing we can do about it, other than posture.

Unless we start arming ourselves with cruise missiles, with some nuclear armed, there is every possibility that there will not be an Australia as we know it, quite some time before you croak.

We can either go nuclear ourselves, or at the orders of a new master.

It would be perhaps poetic justice if our green/left folk ended up not agrarian as they would like, but as field labour for such a new master.

Plantagenet,

Why don’t you ask questions instead of making false assumptions and unfounded assertions? I am advocating least cost energy. Until you and the renewable energy proponents recognise that you cannot succeed in your mission if you are advocating to increase energy costs. The world wants and needs energy at lowest possible cost. Anything else is not politically sustainable. The lowest cost will win. So, for those concerned about GHG emissions, it is up to them to advocate for least cost, low emissions technologies if they want to reduce global GHG emissions. Nothing else will succeed. Renewables cannot meet the requirements. Nuclear can

Peter lang wrote:

>> I am advocating least cost energy>>

It really depends on your definition of "least cost"

If you cling to the belief that the negative externalities of:

--adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere

AND

--Relying on Middle-East and Russian oil and gas

= zero

You'll arrive at one answer.

If you believe either or both of these > zero you'll arrive at another.

However, as I've pointed, even without taking these into account, renewables AND greater energy efficiency are gaining ground because in many regions they are the cheapest option to fill at least part of the mix.

The Germans are, of course, potty. They believe relying on Russian gas is less risky than using their nukes.

Right now the Chinese seem to be the most enthusiastic builders of wind energy capacity followed by the Texans.

Peter Lang

I am aware there are major impediments in the USA, Oz and western Europe. But what about China, India and Russia? I might be wrong but I don't think they have the same political problems. In Russia nuclear provides 18% of power generation which is marginally less than the USA. The share for China and India are quite low, 2 per cent and 3 per cent respectively. Fossil on the other hand is huge in these countries and their planned increase dwarfs those for nuclear. Indeed China has just announced that it intends to increase CO2 emissions at least for the next 15 years.

This leads me to tentatively conclude that current reactors cannot compete. The question then is whether private firms would be prepared to do all the R&D to bring nuclear up to speed given the sort of problems I mention in the second paragraph of the article.