New nuclear electricity could cost double that of uncarbontaxed power from already built coal stations. However it should be long term price stable unlike east Australian gas which may get too expensive. Gas fired electricity is generally what fills in the lulls from wind generation and what takes up the slack as solar power fades in the late afternoon.

Nuclear electricity could help greatly if Australia gets millions of electric cars that are charged overnight. Therefore it can displace both power sector and transport sector emissions, a double edged attack. The evidence suggests from Germany and elsewhere that efforts to reduce emissions will fail without a lot of nuclear. Those opposing it for Australia are helping to keep our emissions high.

"Without nuclear energy we would have burned millions more tons of coal and billions more barrels of oil."

Here's another counterfactual analysis:

If those who like to call them selves 'Progressives' had not been doing all in their power to bloc nuclear power development and deployment for the past 50 years, over the past 30 years, nuclear power could have replaced most fossil fire electricity generation by now and , consequently avoided 75-170 Gt CO2 emissions and avoided 4.5-8.9 million fatalities by 2015.

Here is a bloke who knows what he is talking about, but the green anti nuclear lobby seems to have the pollies by the short and curlies and no one is game to bite the bullet and get on with the job.
David

Nuclear energy?

Yes sure, but only as cheaper than coal thorium that just doesn't produce the same toxic waste, which is eminently suitable for long life space batteries; and has no weapons spin offs!

I understand the Indians are working on a 300 MW power plant they hope to have up and running this year?
Alan B.

Very nice to hear a logical and reasoned argument for nuclear power. There is no doubt the world will require lots of it over the next 100 years and beyond. Of course the Greens and left wingers will do their best to frustrate its development but eventually their lies and propaganda will be shown up for the rubbish it is. The real question is how much damage they will do before reality kicks in.

It's not just oppositiont o nuclear power that's holding it back. Economic obstacles are probably a bigger factor. England has (rightly) decided to build more nuclear power stations, but has found the cost of doing so to be much higher than expected. And compromising the safety standards and culture that make nuclear power so safe is not an acceptable solution to that problem, even if the claims of the radiation being much less dangerous than is commonly believed are 100% correct.

IMO unless and until we get a much bigger population, nuclear power in Australia is unlikely to be cost competitive with renewables. But it's worth keeping an eye on — it may yet confound my expectations.