Manufacturers of light water SMRs say they can get the levelised cost down to $100 per Mwh close to the average wholesale NEM power price. Check https://www.aemo.com.au/ Remember wind and commercial solar get not only the pool price but an $85 aftermarket payment. SMRs should require no backup other than normal spinning reserve, use existing powerlines and should reduce the need for expensive frequency correction FCAS.

SMRs should go to Hazelwood, Liddell and somewhere in SA for starters.

If as has been suggested a number of times that nuclear power on
the large scale is too expensive, then we have an alternative route.
We have very large supplies of coal. Most other countries do not.
The world ERoEI of coal had fallen to somewhere near 10.
But that is a world figure not ours.

So---, why do we not stop the export of coal and keep it for our own
use and build coal fired stations. Other countries might go nuclear.
We could run it like that for a very long time.
Then perhaps thorium and nuclear power, if not obsoleted by then
because of fusion, hot rocks stations etc could then be more economic.

Having lots of coal with good ERoEI gives us many options.

Solar IS nuclear.
However earthbound nuclear is unnecessary given our vast renewable capabilities.

A reality check for renewables enthusiasts. We've had a national Renewable Energy Target since 2001 yet emissions keep going up along with retail power prices. Not only is there the direct cost of subsidies but indirect costs forced on the system like the need for open cycle gas for backup and frequency correction.

A more vivid example may be UK vs Germany. The latter are throwing billions at renewables and phasing out nuclear while retaining coal. The Brits are going the other way. The UK should meet its emissions targets while Germany will fail. Perhaps renewables aren't the salvation they're cracked up to be.

The cost of nuclear power is a factor! No question. And at 6 cents per KwH. twice as much as coal and in building a light water uranium powered reactor! Both in the cost of the enriched and fabricated fuel and in building the power plant. A 350 MW reactor will burn around 2551 tons of fuel during its operational life. Whereas a coal-fired plant will burn millions of tons during its. Even so, using ROM coal able to producing power for 3 cents per KwH. or 6 cents using washed coal. Or here for around 24 cents per KwH. And that's required to make the much vaunted green preferred renewables competitive! Albeit, with a taxpayer-funded subsidy. Contrast that with a 350 MW thorium powered MSR. that only requires one ton of much cheaper more abundant thorium during its similar, operational life. Why, the security guard out front costs more than the fuel! Then understand that because the latter is not pressurized the build cost of the entire power plant is considerably less! Thermal coal has a significant future as alternative transport fuel we make here and as a source of increasingly important man-made graphene. Alan B.

Bazz, I think you are on the right track. We should point out to the anti-coal and anti nuclear lobby, that Australia's vast reserve of uranium could be used overseas if they don't want us to use it here and that could be used to offset the emissions from our modern and cheaper to run coal fired stations which we are going to be forced to build anyway. In the mean time, home owners had better get their solar panels and generators going, because they are all going to need them when Liddell closes down.

Abbott and his merry men might be on a winner.

David