.

Dear Graham,

.

We have been discussing this subject on OLO, off and on, for many years now, and I continue to consider that the best solution for Australia would, indeed, be to set up a network of small to medium-sized nuclear power plants throughout the country.

The current development of SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) would correspond, in large part, to our overall requirements, though we may need slightly larger reactors for some regions, and the continued development of renewable energy facilities for others.

You mention Britain’s Rolls-Royce as a possible supplier of SMRs. The UK and France have both announced that their first SMR is due to be ready for grid use by about 2030.

Rolls-Royce is the leader of a consortium of companies developing the UK’s SMR. The consortium includes Cavendish Nuclear, Babcock International as well as eight other British companies.

EDF’s (Electricité de France’s) partners include the US company NuScale Power LLC and, interestingly, the China National Nuclear Corp.

EDF built the first nuclear power plant in China at Daya Bay in 1983 in partnership with the Chinese national nuclear industry.

There are currently four SMRs in advanced stages of construction in Argentina, China, and Russia, and several existing and newcomer nuclear energy countries are conducting SMR research and development.

It is reported that there are currently about 50 SMR designs and concepts globally. Most are said to be in various stages of development but some claim to be close to being deployable.

Once again, we in Australia could find ourselves faced with a choice between two different strategies. We could either, as you suggest, confirm, once more, our steadfast and unwavering allegiance to the Anglosphere by choosing the wholly British SMRs or, alternatively, mark our difference as a young, but (for obvious reasons) maturing Eurasian nation, and buy French/US/Chinese SMRs.

Unfortunately, judging from our recent track record, there seems little doubt as to what that choice might be.

Never mind, I guess we'll eventually grow up – maybe in another couple of hundred years or so – if we manage to survive !

.

I was sure Scott meant nuclear when he said "Technology not Taxes." I think he is waiting for just the right moment to break it to everyone.

I think there is a problem with the MSRs. As the whole energy crunch
is looking very synchronised world wide the demand for MSRs will very
large indeed. Graham mentioned that they are 50 Mwatt, well that is
very small and to replace a station like Hazelwood which had 8 stacks
and was 2 Gw would mean 40 MRSs.
I may have been presuming they would hook them up to existing
turbines, but apparently not.
Rolls is talking of suppling Britain in 2030 !
How far down the list will we be ? There maybe only three manufacturers.
There seems to be only one practical path.
Give an order to the French ? for one or two large nuclear power
stations. In the meantime spend a lot of money refurbishing our
existing coal fired stations.
When the green scream in agony, tell them there just isn't time
and anyway; IT IS THE SUN STUPID !

Gauwd if what I suspect might be true we will be able to run the
country on red faces !

Hi AB and Bazz

"I think he is waiting for just the right moment (to drop the bomb on) everyone."

Bazz, your got to come out of La La Land, it isn't going to happen.

Well Paul, it is not La La Land, the cycle is real, but not
necessarily anything for the AGW warriors to worry about.
It does seem that it has peaked at this time just about on schedule.
The CO2 demon that everyone is in a tizz about might well be true.
Doesn't mean the Maunder cycle is not true also.
The cycle seems to vary between 600 years and 1000 years very roughly.
Not enough cycles have been observed to be sure which is why they were
going to use Fourier analysis to get a better idea.

Anyway in another 100 years it will be obvious if they are different cycles.