Like any new complex product, small modular or small molten-salt uranium reactors are cheap easy simple, believe me. Reliance on public, taxpayer money to pay for it all is implicit.

Confusion between experimental stages, scientists'-engineers' job creation claims and market competitive electricity production is a slam-dunk no brainer. Again, reliance on public, taxpayer money to pay for it all is implicit.

And don't forget those downplayed security, decommissiong and only a few hundred years - wast storage costs.

Thanks again taxpayer.

No worries :)

There are now indications that wind & solar can only be built using
coal & oil derived energy and there is currently a dispute that has
even become a legal stouch.

http://tinyurl.com/yakte33o

Another paper has used UK figures for January 2016 to show that if
batteries were to be used then 14,000 batteries the size of the
recently Sth Australian installed 115Megawatt/hr battery would be needed.
There was a six day lull in the wind in the middle of that month.
You can imagine what that would do to the battery.
Then where do you get the electricity to recharge it ?

plantagenet says' "Reliance on public, taxpayer money to pay for it all is implicit."

Let all electricity generators compete equally and bring on a carbon tax that incentivises the shift to clean sources, with no direct taxpayer subsidies. The social/taxation system can take care of affordability problems for low income earners.

This means lifting the embargo on nuclear, AND, requiring generators to meet strong reliability criteria, i.e. sufficient storage to ensure 24/7/365 supply.

Of course, Greens will hate such holding of renewables to account. Their interim position would be gas backup and bugger-all storage, meaning the payment of carbon taxes while awaiting the arrival of their impossible storage dream. They can leave the bloody tax-payer alone. I'm tired of hearing how cheap renewables are when they're directly and indirectly subsidised to the gills.

Hysterical opposition to nuclear, especially when renewables don't cut emissions (even in Germany where the emperor has no clothes but Greens push on uncritically), should no longer be allowed to bring the world towards CAGW. Finkel should be the one saying this here in Oz.

Luciferase,
Isn't the co2 tax got us to where we are now ?

>sufficient storage to ensure 24/7/365 supply.
The opinion seems to be shifting, it is becoming more certain that
batteries simply cannot do the job for a 24/7/365 system.
The sheer cost is one reason. I am trying to find the article again
but it was several hundred of billions of pounds for 14,000 batteries of 120MW/HRs.
Fancy charging that lot after a lull period.
I doubt Australia has enough water available to run hydro at that scale.
I think it has now been established that renewables are in fact very expensive.
The ERoEI of coal, oil, gas are continuing to fall and inevitably
there will in the future be no point in digging them out.

It seems that a change of policy to nuclear is inevitable.
I think it may take a very serious collapse of the economy before
the people and politicians are forced into a change of mind.
I would start by establishing a TAFE college in Parliament house
and forcing all politicians and public servants to do a range of
courses in electricity, mechanics, chemistry and whatever other
weaknesses they had in their past education for it is obvious none
of them learnt anything useful during their education.

Just listen to them talking on Q&A etc to understand the problem.

Forget about AGW, that is the least of our problems.

For a 24/7/365 system it is gradually dawning that nuclear is the only possibility.

Ah yes Luciferase, I remember seeing that One Nation senator that was
disqualified, he is an engineer, trying to get a point across about
some electricity argument with a politician and finally just giving up.

Bazz,

I was initially in favor of a carbon tax but arrived at the understanding that renewables coupled with fossil-fuels cannot sufficiently mitigate against CAGW. Also, affordable storage to bring about 24/7/365 despatchability is for dreamers, along with any combo of renewables, gas and storage. That's why Greens hate the NEG, it hits them hard with this truth.

A carbon tax would hit them even harder because renewables plus gas would be further nobbled. This is a reason I want it other than elevating nuclear above coal, although it's already capable of rivalling coal without a tax.

There is the argument that a CT would nobble exporters, but only if they fail to shift to emission free electricity generation.

The CT can be phased in, with investors safe in the certainty that coal/gas is on the way out on the main grid while nuclear is the only sensible option on the way in. Renewables will continue to have their place off-grid, and some investment there will continue.