Same old, Same old.

Yes there was a lot of misplaced nuclear energy enthusiasm in its "day" in the 1970s.

And yes, Whitlam and his oddbod Ministry were notorious visionaries for grandiose technical projects.

BTW, don't get Alan B.

...started on his MSR Thorium (bold technical experiment - answer to our prayers) religion.

P.S.

The author's own Federal Coalition never seriously pursued the nuclear energy option during the 10 years they were in office.

Now as Coalition Opposition Ted and Dutz are floating the nuclear energy balloon in a destructive attempt to drive a wedge between:

the Labor, Teals and Greens Environmental lobby

and

Labor, Industry and Union interests.

More of what we've being doing lately on energy doesn't seem to be working. Not only in electricity prices but meaningful emissions reductions. I recently drove from Adelaide to Roxby Downs, home of the huge uranium deposit at adjoining Olympic Dam. The last 100 km into Pt Augusta were fringed by becalmed wind turbines so no doubt the expensive gas fired generators were working overtime. Where the Pt Augusta baseload coal stations used to be the solar tower was also not working, like an ancient monument to ideology.

Bowen says small modular reactors will be costly. Not so if production cost estimates of say $60 per MWh by General Electric are correct. Typical spot prices on the NEM are $100-$200 per MWh. Installing SMRs at old coal stations will not require 14,000 km of new unsightly power lines, expensive short lived batteries nor mountain valleys to be dammed. They could also re-employ some of the workers. Bowen needs to check his facts.

Words from another mealy-mouthed politician playing violin for his past failures.

And how many wasted years did his lot sit on their hands and do nothing bur rake in big salaries, while virtue signalling to the unknowns (and I just love this bit of over simplified obfuscation), holding the quaint social licence. Doesn’t that one beat all!.

While all the high priests of the great sun God above, hold each other’s hands and dance in a circle, chanting the same worn out lies in Canberra, those of “us” outside of the circle pay a painful price for the combined negligence and irresponsibility by “them”.

Da

Yap, yap yap.

Albanese open his mind? His mind is already a open space.

Get back to to what gave us the cheapest energy available - coal. We sell it to China and other countries that use it. It is the height of stupidity not to be using it ourselves.

Emissions and temperature targets are completely detached from the issues of human well-being and development.

Rapid deployment of wind and solar power has invariably increased electricity costs and reduced reliability.

The massive swathes of land used for wind and solar farms are causing conflicts, and ruining the environment that the climate hysterics hypocritically claim is the reason we should be rejecting fossil fuels. The next atrocity will be thousands of kilometres of wires and pylons to connect these eyesores to customers.

All this damage is because of the myth that we control weather by reducing carbon dioxide and limiting warming to 1.5 degrees, which leading scientists and the sainted IPCC long ago admitted was dead in water.

Bob Hawke was the last labor leader with vision. The current one is a technological dinosaur.

Dismissed nuclear on the basis of nuclear waste. Nuclear waste other nations would pay us annual millions to take from them. Nuclear waste which we could very safely burn in mass produced, factory assembled, SMR, MSR technology, where it is mostly 90+% unspent fuel.

And in that particular combination able to produce power prices as low as 1 cent PKWH. All while reducing the half-life from thousands of years to just 300 with the resulting waste 5-10% vastly less toxic. And maybe useful as space batteries?

Why not? Because we have coal and gas/coal and gas exports, and phuck climate change! Our fossil fuel exports may create as much as 40% of Current CO2 emissions.

Doing renewables at home changes SFA in the context of manmade climate change. In that context, the inmates have escaped and are now running the asylum.

They talk (jaw flap) about inflation and the average household energy as if nothing could be done. Wrong.

The real problem for the average battler is, that labor intends to do SFA about any of financial pain energy powered inflation inflicts, given royalties and taxes are all they see not the pain, their do nothing real (endless futile jaw flap) about energy and energy powered inflation, inflicts.

Nuclear energy? Let's not even discuss what might be possible. I mean ever increased government revenue (royalties and taxes) is all that matters and paramount!

Price caps? Well, it's our coal and we issue revocable mining leases and export licenses.

Should the war in Ukraine and the daily loss of life that in turn forces the international price of fossil fuels up offshore, make it ok to price gouge here at home?

Production costs are much the same as 2 years ago!

If these foreign interests continue with the massive price gouge, then we need to impose a windfall tax to offset the loss of royal and the cost of subsidies.
Alan B.

The loss of royal should read the loss of royalties.

BTW Maverick, I won't say anything about thorium given the issue has been well ventilated by me in the past. I will, however, refer you to the work of a prize-winning investigative Journalist and science writer, Richard Martin and his book, Thorium, Super Fuel, subtitled, green energy.

See his personal encapsulation on TED talks on U tube.
Just type in Richard Martin and thorium.
Alan B.

Yes I can see that Richard Martin stands alone in the US as the MSR Thorium clairvoyant.

If only untold A$Billions of Australian taxpayer development funding could be avoided by private industry having a modicum of interest in Richard Martin's visions.

The so-called "debate" about nuclear power should be seen for what it really is.

It's a deliberate distraction and a stalling technique in order to maintain the energy status quo for as long as possible, and like the eternal theoretical high-speed rail, dragged out when politically convenient for some.

The talk about modular reactors offering some sort of salvation is promising but still theoretical.
At the moment the only ones in existence are two on a Russian ice-breaker and one in development elsewhere. Any such reactors would be at least a decade away before they are commercially viable - the same time it would take to bring a standard reactor on-line in Australia.

No, the reason for interest in nuclear is because it is proven low carbon generation with a high capacity factor and a very long service life. So while conventional nuclear is expensive to set up, as it was in France in the 1970s and 1980s, the long service life means that the lcoe is very low.

SMR designs could make the lcoe cheaper, like this prototype in China now operating at capacity.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/China-s-demonstration-HTR-PM-reaches-full-power?feed=feed

What concerns me is the development of 24/7 wind/solar power in Australia. The technology is complex, not proven, has a low capacity factor, and the service life of wind and solar generation may be less than a quarter that of nuclear.

The British government has ordered or otherwise requested 3 MSR
power systems from Rolls Royce.
We should ask Rolls Royce and GE for quotes or other indications of
interest from those companies. There is another US company with an
approved design.
If we delay too long we will be on the end of a very long queue.
We cannot wait another three years to call for tenders, the states
might have to act independently and hope they get High Court Judges
with some backbone.