Neither the costly RET nor Direct Action have caused Australia's emissions to decline. The promises made at the Paris climate conference mean emissions should be going down over 1% a year instead they are going up 1.3%. On the other hand 15 GW of nuclear baseload power could reduce Australia's emissions by 30%. It will however cost about double the price of coal fired electricity suggesting an implicit carbon price of around $50 per tCO2.

Mini nukes or SMRs when they arrive in the mid 2020s should be as versatile as gas which is likely to be in short supply on the east coast. Globally oil that other fossil fuel will go into steady decline. Nuclear power is ideal for overnight charging of electric cars. Think of 10m EVs each needing an overnight top-up of 10 kwh or so when solar has gone to bed. In practical terms Australia will never achieve low carbon status without nuclear.

Kieran Lark’s sentiments might be right (indeed, I think they are) but the pathway he travels is a bit off-beam. We don’t know what the current public and political consensuses on nuclear energy are. The numbers in favour have been rising, were recently around 50%, and might now be higher. Many reject nuclear because they believe in a 100% renewable future. That’s an unlikely proposition that needs much more debate. Australia is no better or worse a site for nuclear power stations than the 30 or so countries that do host them. Anyway, uninhabited geological stable land is not where a reactor should be sited. Proximity to users and grids is more important than isolation. Our uranium and thorium resources are completely irrelevant – fuel fabricators just buy them at prevailing global prices no matter where they originate. Most radiation fears are indeed irrational – but so are most humans. And while Kieran may be right about future nuclear technologies (I concede to not knowing) he’s a lawyer, not a nuclear engineer and should avoid picking winners. It’s a really tough gig.

These are quibbles in the face of the real challenge, which is to understand and shift the weirdly Aussie aversion to nuclear power. Officially the reason used to be that ‘we don’t need it, we’ve got lots of coal’. Obviously that no longer holds water.

If nuclear progress had not been disrupted in the late 1960s and since, the position now (if learning rates demonstrated up to about 1970 had continued) would be (approximately):

• The overnight capital cost of new nuclear plants would be around 1/10th of what it is now

• Nuclear power would have replaced just about all baseload fossil fuel electricity generation

• This would have avoided around 5 million fatalities since 1980 and about 300,000 in year 2015 alone

• Avoided an additional 85 Gt CO2 since 1980

High learning rates were achieved in the past and could be achieved again with appropriate policies.

more … ‘Nuclear power learning rates – policy implications’ https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/13/nuclear-power-learning-rates-policy-implications/

Home solar with new super-efficient Batteries promises 24/7 energy independence from Engineer run, capital intensive, State grids.

1. What's the non-advertised cost to the taxpayer, of decommissioning reactors in Britain?

2. What are the state security costs for protecting nuclear waste shipments and mini-reactor deliveries from protest groups.

3. I hear the terrorists in Belgium were planning to occupy one of the local reactors there. Might terrorists be able to break into one of those small reactors the authors are planning for Wup Wup? Hopefully the local coppa at Wup Wup can avert disaster.

4. See the report "Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities", US Congressional Research Service, 2014, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL34331.pdf

plantagenet,

Instead of cherry picking bits of information and asking questions based on the standard anti-nuke talking points, can I urge you to consider the big picture. If decarbonisation of electricity is what people want, then nuclear is the cheapest way to do it. It's also the safest and cleanest. The fuel is effectively unlimited. It can potentially provide all the world's energy including producing unlimited transport fuels (e.g petrol, diesel, jet fuels). And much cheaper than any other technology. Read the link in my previous comment.

To understand the big picture, please read "Is nuclear the cheapest way to decarbonise electriicty?"
https://judithcurry.com/2016/01/19/is-nuclear-the-cheapest-way-to-decarbonize-electricity/

In short the results presented in the ERP analysis http://erpuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ERP-Flex-Man-Full-Report.pdf show all or mostly new nuclear capacity (an no more weather dependent renewables) is likely to be the cheapest way to decarbonise the GB electricity system to meet the recommended 50 g CO2/kWh target. The ERP analysis used the central estimates from the DECC commissioned Parsons and Brinkerhoff reports (17 July, 2013) here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/energy-generation-cost-projections.

31 GW of new nuclear would achieve the 50 g/kWh recommended target for GB electricity system.
32 GW of new nuclear would achieve the same emissions intensity as France's electricity system, i.e. 44 g/kWh.

For comparison, Germany's emissions intensity of electricity is 475 g/kWh, i.e. 10 times higher than France. And it is increasing not decreasing - so much for weather dependent renewables, eh!

A friend of mine was the head of the reactor establishment at Menai in
Sydney. He worked in nuclear power stations in the UK and was pre eminent in the nuclear field in Australia.
His name was Keith Alder OA, deceased SK. He was present in Vienna in
1956 when the Russians described their Chernobyl design.
Other engineers at the conference pointed out a design flaw in that
if the carbon moderators for any reason released the energy stored in
them it would boil the containment vessel.

This is exactly what happened at Chernobyl.

As far as Australia is concerned the first afternoon that the power
goes off as mum is cooking dinner the next morning there will be a demand for nuclear power.

As far as Japan is concerned with hindsight it was foolish to build
power stations on the east coast adjacent to the plate boundaries.
A country with tsunami experience should never have made that mistake.

We also should be careful where we build stations, or anything else for that matter.
Large boulders have been found on cliff tops on the Pacific coast that
could only have got there by a tsunami. There is already one risk
for the east coast in that a large mountain slip into the ocean in Hawii will happen some time in the future.