"All of this however is only possible if Australians and their leaders are prepared to have a frank and fearless discussion on nuclear power".

Australians have been 'discussing' it non-stop. It is their political class, in thrall to the lunatic left, that will not discuss it. We have an abundance of coal, and an abundance of uranium, but the backward politicians remain in the dark ages. They still believe the lie that climate change is not natural and that CO2, whose slight increase has greened previously dry parts of the planet, is a dangerous gas. So they they have been scared of coal - the only reason Australia's economy used to be booming, but they won't use uranium which would see our previous glory regained. Morons!

Apart from replacing coal baseload other advantages of nuclear are frequency stabilisation and the ability to use existing, not new, infrastructure. It seems inevitable that Australia will go from 257 Twh annual electricity demand to over 300 Twh as a result of electric cars, universal summer aircon, gas appliance replacement, desalination and population growth. That has to be reliable not at the whims of weather.

The SA development dept says that the state's half paced uranium production in 2016 produced 22 gigawatt years of electricity overseas. That's 193 Twh which could power all of Australia with a modest boost. While costs may be lowest with large gigawatt sized reactors they clearly take too long to build outside Asia. The hope has to be SMRs initially of the light water type but later the thorium and plutonium consuming types. Hazelwood and Liddell would be ideal sites to install the first SMRs.

The time to go nuclear should have been twenty years ago. I think it's too late now. By the time we could get nuclear power up and running, we'll be able to do the job cheaper with solar power.

The advantages of nuclear power:

https://www.thegwpf.com/what-could-have-been-if-nuclear-power-deployment-had-not-been-disrupted/

Our self-imposed prohibition is nonsense and should be lifted immediately.

I can't see any reason why our power source needs to be uranium, or a highly pressurized light water reactor operating at around 150 (extremely explosive) atmospheres, and if there's any breach in the system, the water immediately vapourises and flashes to its constituent parts, superheated hydrogen and oxygen. An extremely explosive mixture in those proportions. One part hydrogen two parts oxygen.

Which arguably is what actually exploded in Chernobyl? After expanding xenon had ruptured the reactor vessel or a heat exchange pipe. A tiny pinhole leak/metal fatigue, all that's required to start a problem like Chernobyl! And at any time without even a nanosecond warning!

Whereas, if we simply use the brains we were born with we would go straight down the thorium path! And use it in, WALK AWAY SAFE MSR technology, given the material is already molten, the reactor designed from the ground up to operate as an MSR And already fifty-year-old technology that is far more easily and cheaply miniaturized and modularized given the operating pressure!

Which is the same inside or outside the facility.

However way you paint it? The very best and safest source of nuclear-sourced medical isotopes are more easily made and much more abundantly in an MSR thorium based facility. Especially miracle cancer cure, Bismuth 213.

Currently, we are mining lithium and rare earth metals in around three places, with thorium as a waste byproduct we need to somehow dispose of in hundreds of annual tons.

One ton of which could power an MSR for thirty years, producing 1% waste, which is far less toxic and eminently suitable as long life space batteries, we'd need for our new aerospace industry!

Whereas, the equivalent 350 MW, light water reactor needs 2551 tons of vastly more expensive uranium from which we make 2550 tons of waste!

Why anybody with a still functioning brain or one of their own would propose the latter is beyond me? Save, they must want to create weapons from the plutonium we'd create in such a facility?
TBC Alan B.

Yes lets go nuclear.

But only if we are guaranteed it will produce power cheaper than coal.

The legal hurdles to nuclear power are total show stoppers under the Minority, temporary, Morrison Parliament. Those now in the Majority (Greens, Independents and Labor) will almost certainly vote against any pro-nuclear legislative change, now and after Labor wins power in 2019. The laws to overturn being the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

As well as Parliamentary votes to overturn the laws there will probably be demands for a Nuclear Power Referendum or two.

Guys, unfortunately you are all correct.
Those asking WHY, we are not, have not, done anything about our flailing energy situation, are not asking the right questions or looking in the right direction.
The answer is as follows, I know it will be taken as a cliche, but here goes anyway.
Ultimately it comes down to greed and avarice, by those who have the power and opportunity to do what they want, at our expense.
Put simply, govt ministers.
They have sold off nearly all of our public utilities, based on a contrived notion of saving money, when that has clearly never been true, as evidenced by the fact that the cost of living in this country has continually risen without any signs of abating.
Our energy suppliers or providers are no different.
When the time came to sell it, the buyers all turned their noses up and actually threatened the govt with words like, 'it's not profitable enough, call us when it's making enough money to make it viable for us'.
So it was, if you recall, that Canberra started saying, we were paying too little for our electricity and it could not go on, the price had to rise to a more realistic level.
Then the filthy scum did the deal, and we have been compromised once more.
We are NEVER going to see affordable energy, thorium or otherwise, as long as we have this 'dictatorship' attitude from Canberra.
They're looking after their mates, who in turn look after them.
Unless we somehow force all the pollies hands, and I don't care how, I believe the end justifies the means, we will never get rid of corruption and greed if we don't start trying.
Essential services should never be sold off, as there is and will never be a good enough reason to do so.
These services, like water, power and so many others are 'essential' to our everyday lives.
They are NOT LUXURIES!
I don't know how to get things back to where they should be, other than a public uprising.
No?
Another beer instead!

Good post. Well done.

If change is to happen, the message of cheaper, safer, more reliable, less land-hungry power generation must be repeated until it is understood.

The link to Dr Ben Heard's work is apt. I encourage readers who are not familiar with Ben's work to follow it.

One small quibble. The distinction between SMR's and conventional pressurised water reactors is much more than small and more expensive.

There are many different designs for nuclear plant, the older ones relying on human intervention and automated subsystems to ensure safety. SMR's, which are now becoming commercially available, are designed to be intrinsically walk-away safe. They cannot do as Chernobyl did, not now and not ever.

Meanwhile, our NSW State government, in its haste to flog assets, has not reserved any of the remaining salt water cooling sites permanently for power generation. SMR's are ideally suited to small harbourside or Lake Macquarie sites for cooling, with consequent minimal additional transmission and connection costs. Liddell and Hazelwood are only potential starting points.

There are those who say we should have done this twenty years ago, and now is too late!

Q: When is the best time to plant a tree?
A: twenty years ago. Failing that? Now!

China has wages inflation growing at were informed 30% PA. Now that wages inflation is certain to make everything dearer including the coal-fired power used to make solar voltaic panels or wind turbines or parts thereof.

We the people only have power over decision-making politicians a couple or three times a decade and the very reason we've had an energy crisis for at least the last decade!

It's time they stopped deciding what we think and stopped to listen to us their employer. Need to be called out for dog whistling or playing to an audience of bigots/numbskulls or playing the race card in order to divide and rule!

This divisive tactic on the part of mealy-mouthed pollies, clearly looking after themselves and their cronies say it's high time for a Federal ICAC! We need folk to interview each and every contending candidate to get their personal commitment to nuclear power as the only viable answer to affordable dispatchable carbon-free power everybody can actually afford and without tanking the economy o emasculating our manufacturing sector.

We opted for coal-fired power because it was cheaper than the nuclear option. this is no longer so, but may now be 3-4 times dearer.

And critical if we are to both decarb the economy as well as grow it! An absolute must! Otherwise, might as well sell up and go squat in a cave burning dung to cook our meals as we tell the grandkids, we tried but those with the power to make positive change wouldn't/weren't allowed to!

If there's another more credible explanation? I'm not seeing it!

Unless it a case of the inmates taking over and running the asylum?

Hasbeen: Suggest you get a copy of, thorium, cheaper than coal, by economist, Ivy-league professor Robert Hargreaves. Or just read, Super Fuel, subtitled, green energy, by prize-winning investigative Journalist and science writer Richard Martin.
Alan B.

Alan Bl,
Forget coal - that's too expensive now. The real competitor is solar power.

Twenty years ago, nuclear was much cheaper than solar. But technology has moved on.

Come off the raw prawn Aiden.

Solar power is only nearly competitive a couple of hours each side of mid day, on a sunny day. It is totally useless in the dark of night, as no suitable storage system is available, or likely.

Yes solar is great if you only want your lights on during the day.

Hasbeen, you're the one on the raw prawn. There's lots of storage available. We have pumped storage, and battery storage already, with scope for plenty more of each. Pretty soon we'll have thermal storage (as part of the solar thermal power plant) and in the long term we'll undoubtedly have chemical storage as well.

Aidan did you do any math at school?

You obviously can't do any math if actually believe the garbage you just posted, so please contact me, I have a big bridge to sell you.

While we are at it those damn submarines should be nuclear.

Solar, what else are you going to suggest for a joke, firstly remember a few weeks ago that woman who protected her baby during the hail storm replace her with thousands of solar panels nearly all would have been BROKEN, SMASHED, OBLITERATED.

Good luck at night time when most cars in the future will be electric, and in a city a few 100 thousand people want to recharge there car batteries.

Small correction: "Australia remains an active miner and exporter of uranium to countries such as India. These countries use this uranium to produce terawatts of clean electricity to millions every year." Not right. I haven't done the precise tally but with some 450 nuclear power plants running at an average output of say 1 gigawatt, global nuclear fleet runs at something less than 1 terawatt (TW). And that's not 'per year'. TW is a unit of power, that is, the rate of electrical energy production. The energy produced over time is cumulative, the rate at which it's produced is not. Perhaps pedantic but there's so much confusion about electrical units that getting it right (occasionally) is worthwhile in my view.

It's a shame that so many people feel they are qualified to comment on fairy tales, known as 'renewables'.
Like all good fairy tales, 'one day my prince will come'.
And so it is with renewables.
It reminds of that film, 'build it and they will come'.
That was a fictional film, and so are renewables.
It's been a comedy of forced errors.
Forced because there is a dangerous and stubborn movement out there led by arrogance and ideology.
Renewables are NOT up to the task yet, maybe one day.
Right now they are a 'pipe dream' at best.
Their duty cycle is arguably the most inefficient and deficient of all the power generating offerings available today.
One thing is for certain, and that is, if we push for this electric car future, we will not have the capacity to service this future demand without compromise.
The current power suppliers will resist any attempts at creating new cheaper power supplies, because they will have to drop their prices, or if they back it, it will be because they will profit even more and will not drop the price.
The people have been conned by these bastards, because, I don't think anyone has given any thought to the fact that, once the subsidies run out, anyone with solar panels on their roofs will be supplying free power to these scumbags, while you carry the burden and cost of maintenance and repair, or replacement of the solar panels eventually.
Sure you might be getting a cheaper power bill, but your provider is making money out of you, you are facilitating him so he profits even more with no outlay or cost to him, cut him off as soon as you can.
What I believe should happen is everyone pull the fuses, get their own batteries, (car ones will do, approx 20)thereby getting off the 'grid' and essentially telling the scumbags to go and get stuffed.
If enough people did this, (I'd like to see everyone do it) these pigs would go broke over night.
I would really like to see that.

Another advertisement for the nuclear industry. Sadly lacking in effective arguments.

- The author calls nuclear power -"clean electricity generation", though the world is struggling with how to deal with nuclear's toxic wastes.

- Lucas Heights is not "a key supplier" of medical isotopes France, Netherlands are far more important. And anyway, cyclotrons are now becoming recognised as far more suitable and safe ways of producing these isotopes

-The author talks of high costs of "conventional" nuclear power plants - but completely avoids discussion of the costs of the much touted, but as yet non existent Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. (SMRs). They're supposed to be cheaper - yet there is no market for them. One reason for that is that the only way that SMRs could be marketed commercially, is in mass orders, not just one by one. Who's going to take the risk of ordering them en masse - with the possibility of something going wrong?

- The author quotes the latest 60 minutes episode run by Ben Heard. As many critics have noted - this was more like a laughable straight ad for the nuclear industry. Quite a disgraceful poor performance by Channel 9, especially in view of their previous fine programme on 60 Minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n05BeqPp1w

-The whole argument about carbon emissions relies on simply focussing on the nuclear reactor, which indeed releases but a tiny amount of carbon. Problem is the entire nuclear fuel chain - from uranium mining through to waste burial - and all the steps in between - releases heaps of carbon.

- The author wisely ignores renewable energy - which is becoming ever more effectively and cheaply developed

ALTRAV, on one hand you correctly diss renewables for their shortcomings (presumably on the main grid) while on the other you propose everyone go off grid with renewables.

Dear old Aidan continues banging on about storage dreams leading to 100% renewables while our competitors choose economically viable options.

The 'bastard scumbag' baseload providers are running with the unchanged overheads, including asset maintenance and depreciation, staffing, insurance etc, while burning a less fuel as renewables come on grid. In order to meet overheads and to profit their prices, per kilowatt-hour, must go higher and higher.

The only thing that can remove these scumbags is the arrival of viable storage. Germany, with all its advantages including Green political power and will, and extension cords into French nuclear and Nordic hydro, can't economically and viably employ storage so chooses to build new coal-plants instead. Surely there's a message for even the most myopic of renewablista ideologues to absorb?

The average Joe knows little of the above and is swallowing the line that more renewables means lower power prices, simply because sunshine and wind appear free. If Labor gets in, you can put down your glasses on our economic progress. There will be the blind pursuit of renewables and the continued ban on nuclear.

PS http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/10/25/open-letter-to-heads-of-state-of-the-g-20-from-scientists-and-scholars-on-nuclear-for-climate-change?fbclid=IwAR2ZPWYzUCGEaiv1tinpCQnns0lORFYn4KcALxXtAwDWq0vF-QC2rB5LBtw#disqus_thread

ChristinaMac1 Quote "renewable energy - which is becoming ever more effectively and cheaply developed"

Which in no way means it is reliable and take into account most if not all electronic and other products are build with the idea of planned obsolescence they are designed to need replacing or expensive maintenance after a predetermined time.

And are very heavily subsidized.

Aidan,

Solar power + batteries or wind + batteries are still far more expensive than nuclear.

Cheap flexibility from storage, demand-side response and distributed renewable energy generation poses a “huge threat” to the nuclear industry https://utilityweek.co.uk/cheap-chips-flexibility-poses-huge-threat-nuclear/ 12/10/2018

Florida and Georgia - renewables and energy efficiency cheaper than new nuclear plants http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/energy-efficiency-renewable-0565.html

The UK nuclear industry has that sinking feeling! Officially the UK nuclear industry is going ahead with building a new generation of power stations. But it can’t find anyone to pay for them.

With renewable electricity becoming much cheaper than new nuclear power in the UK - Cool down nuclear plan because renewables are better bet,UK ministers told https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/10/nuclear-renewables-are-better-bet-ministers-told

Washington DC pushes 100% renewable energy bill https://reneweconomy.com.au/washington-dc-pushes-100-renewable-energy-bill-48151/

Nobody can disagree that when the sun shines brightly or the wind blows strongly, the cost of renewable energy per kWh is low. Once firming (storage or carbon fuelled) is added to the equation to deal with intermittency and to make renewables as reliable as thermally generated sources, however, and the multiplicity of subsidies removed, the true state of affairs is woeful.

A plane went down in Indonesia yesterday killing more people than nuclear has in its existence, but not more than wind and solar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

Even tho' some of us will die, we fly to get to places. We need nuclear energy to mitigate climate change, even if some of us may die, because renewables wont get us there and will likely kill more people in the attempt.

http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1118311/csr-turbine-fire-kills-two-workers-inner-mongolia
http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/21483f/two_engineers_hug_before_they_died_atop_a_fiery/

ChristinaMac1 - Did you actually read the link you provided, re what UK ministers told?

First, Quote "during the next 10 years we should get a lot more certainty about just how far we can rely on renewables.”
What state do you think the UK will be in if they wait that 10 years and the results are negative, good luck trying to pay your electricity bill unless you are wealthy.

Quote "Armitt said: “By that point we should be in better position on storage technology and presumably [will] continue to see a drop in price on renewables.”"

Notice he said "should be" not will be, that indicates uncertainty what if he is wrong?

Where is there evidence to support there claims

Quote "New figures released by energy analytics firm EnAppSys show renewables have already overtaken nuclear for electricity generation."

Have these figures been reviewed to see if they are accurate, people with an agenda tend to show figures that will support there argument and conveniently leave out things that are contrary to it.

Also what works in one country or location does not necessarily work in another.

Luciferase, you're right, I diss renewables because they are a 'forced' product.
All their benefits are overplayed and over-reported by the renewable-ists.
My reason for suggesting to cut yourself off the grid, was purely to punish the power providers.
Those who already have solar panels and are enjoying the benefit of the subsidies are committed to the scheme and cannot opt out without losing all their investment in the scheme.
My point was, seeing as how they have been conned or sucked in to the scheme already, just cut yourself off from the grid.
You will have to buy a means of power storage, but you are in this far that when the scheme runs out, you will still be getting cheap power but you will not be subsidising these arseholes so that they will make money from the power YOU generate.
If these pricks were reasonable people, and not greedy scumbags, they would have at least left the subsidy scheme going so you also shared in the profit, after all YOU spent the money to have this crap installed, 'to save money'.
So you're right, but I would not be suggesting this if they were not already committed.
Renewables are not there yet, and I fear that we are trying to trade one evil for another.
I for one do not like the visual pollution caused by these renewables.
The footprint of either solar or wind is many times greater than the area they power.
Then they want to add 'storage' as though the word implies some small little insignificant box, hidden away out of sight.
Does anyone have even a half a clue what the size of all this is, anyone?
I'm already sickened by the sight of the current renewable landscapes I see, but who am I to question the intentions of the greedy, mentally ill children and their mates, running this country.

ALTRAV: From my reading about a 6kW system together with a battery to ensure power on demand will provide the energy needs of an average Oz home. How big is the battery ensuring this works sufficiently to cut yourself from the grid? I say it's big, very big, and expensive, with replacement and maintenance also involved.

More on the the safety theme:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=solar+panel+fire&FORM=HDRSC2

The case for nuclear is building:
http://www.nei.org/voices-for-nuclear-energy?fbclid=IwAR3s8_uLONj0RicUh6zQmXt1enG-cQvkSNHq5QdJhS3bWxEM2ygnmPRpsNs

//The case for nuclear is building//

I dunno... I'm a bit suspect about the noises coming from the government. They're very keen on their 'fair dinkum' power at the moment. An absolutely meaningless phrase, which means they can make it mean whatever they want. Given their past form, I'm pretty sure one of the things that 'fair dinkum' means in the context of power generation is 'definitely not nuclear'.

But who knows... maybe one day we'll see one of these bumbling simpletons brandishing a lump of yellowcake in the parliament as proudly as they did their present from St. Nicholas.

Luciferase

6kW = 6,000 watts / 240 volts = 25 amps you would not use a battery a number of batteries would be better truck ones would do.

I cannot believe that in 2019 Australia is still considering the nuclear power option. Nuclear power [not thorium power, Alan B] has so many things going against it that ir beggars belief that this is still an option.
The whole process of exploration, mining, extraction and purification to minimum working level is expensive, generates a lot of radioactive waste, and produces many tonnes of carbon dioxide.
The construction of a nuclear power station takes a lot of time [10 to 20 years], is expensive and the processes invilved in making the material the power station is made from produce large amounts of carbon dioxide.
The operating life of a power station is below fifty years before the buildings become so radioactive that no one can work there.
The used fuel rods have to be stored until they can be reprocessed which generates more radioactive waste.
Once the station is no longer usable it has be secured for decades or centuries until its radiation levels have declined to a 'safe' demolition level.
In sum, nuclear power is extremely expensive, temporary in use but eternal in storage, and produces more carbon dioxide to set it up, fuel it, reprocess the fuel, and secure until demolition than the carbon dioxide produced by the coal/oil/gas power station which could have been built in its stead.
To top everything off, a nuclear power station uses the one thing this country does not have enough of = WATER.

Brian of Buderim, as much as I lean towards nuclear, it is more the fact that renewables are NOT yet up to the minimum standard required by us, the consumer/user.
From what I understand of thorium salt technology, I like it.
It covers ALL the bases, but unfortunately the pigs in Canberra and their mates can't scam any money from it.
And so it goes that we will fuff around throwing money at renewables because the pigs are making BIG money out of all this so called research and development.
Luciferase, offers some very telling links to what I've been saying for years; they are inefficient, unreliable and when they don't break or crash and burn, their duty cycle is pathetic.
We would get much reliable base load, or otherwise power, if we employed mules walking around in circles driving turbines.
I would dearly like to see a thorium salt reactor at work, or at least some stats, by the sounds of it thus far it sounds like a better choice than all the other contenders, and can be up and running in record time compared to nuclear.
I suspect the reason it is not on the govt agenda is because the pigs won't be able to scam any money off it for them and their mates.

Philip S, you'd hardly use the full possible output in any event. The 6 kW will produce 6750 kWh, which is average Oz household consumption over a year, while covering charge/recharge cycle losses (I've been quite generous on this in my figuring because it's not generation capacity that's the killer, it's the firming). It's then a case of making this energy dispatchable 24/7/365 with batteries, whatever their chemistry (they all require maintenance and replacement).

What is the storage cost of days of overcast weather in winter (especially) while drawing power for home heating, clothes drying, water heating etc. Stuff the expectation to go hair-shirted on these in the 21st century by Green Malthusian ideology. The battery capacity required is huge for a householder. At a grid scale, it's just as ridiculous a proposal.

BoB, you carry on as if nuclear technology stalled in the 1970's, and you're wrong on so many other fronts I won't bother (e.g. nuclear EROEI absolutely craps on renewables, firmed or not). You sing from the Friends of the Earth/Greenpeace songbook. The German experiment proves you wrong and it's time to let grown-ups sort things out. Just stop opposition to lifting the nuclear ban, for Gawd's sake, and get out of the way.

Toni, 'fair dinkum' simply means thermal, of any colour.

Forcing providers to firm their offering by forward contracting drives them to thermal generation together with whatever level of renewables is mandated (which I hope will not grow, but for labor winning the next election).

I'm all for a carbon tax while lifting the nuclear ban, the RET, and all subsidies. That'd sort things because the Sth Koreans et al build conventional reactors cheaply or SMR's will rule as they come on. Gen IV reactors will evolve to deal with the miniscule waste and proliferation 'problems' FoE/Greenpeace are so fond of spruiking/shrieking.

Renewables had their chance and failed the great German experiment. Time to learn from that and move on rather than repeat the mistake. Renewables do NOT make power cheaper but do quite the opposite.

Luciferase, I assume by SMR you mean Molten Salt Reactor, or MSR? I find the technology offers great benefits over existing choices, I just don't know enough about it, nor do I need to.
It suffices to say that if something performs better and cheaper than existing systems, then it should be adopted, or at the very least, trialed.
The fact that these scumbags are pushing these useless and unreliable offerings like wind and sun, is an indictment on the mental state, and brings into question their ability to remain in office, and so should all be deposed and ejected from their current positions as the govt.
As I said, we could do a lot better with mules walking around in circles turning turbines, it would certainly be cheaper, and there are no end of mules or even donkeys, we can start with the greens and as they died off with exhaustion we keep running through the parliament, plenty of donkeys there.
At least that way the bastards would be earning their salary and actually serving the community, which is what they were put there to do.
So there you have it.
A win, win from Canberra.
Now when have you ever heard that before.

//Toni, 'fair dinkum' simply means thermal, of any colour.//

Oh. Really? Are we quite sure about that? In my experience the Liberals are happy to say they'll consider nuclear... and then fail to lift the ban. If they mean all thermal generation, they should say that. I'm sure I can't be the only nerd annoyed by our politicians talking down to us as if we're idiots that can't understand really technical terms like 'coal', 'nuclear', 'thermal' etc.

ALTRAV SMR = small modular reactor, e.g. http://www.nuscalepower.com/

Toni, Morrison has signalled LNP acceptance of nuclear. It needs to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Championing nuclear on climate change and dissing renewables could do it, with the right approach. If they lose this election they'll be out for years and we'll be in the hands of renewablista zealots taking the economy south, so it's hell or bust IMO.

//Toni, Morrison has signalled LNP acceptance of nuclear.//

Not as far as I can tell. I recommend he stop 'signalling' and come out and state, on the public record, that the Liberals support nuclear power. As long as he keeps faffing about with stupid phrases like 'fair dinkum', nobody will listen to him.