The naive belief that we can get from 60% coal baseload to under 20% in just 6 years doesn't help the credibility of Bowen, AEMO, CSIRO et al. We await the promised success of hydrogen fuelled power stations, noting hiccups like Tallawarra B not having enough of the fuel. The same people are strangely silent on how Snowy 2 went from $2bn to $12bn. Surely a $3bn SMR won't escalate by anything like that amount.

On our present course we are headed for energy rationing, politely called 'demand management'. Big electricity users like aluminium smelters will default to China so we buy the finished product made from our own materials but supposedly guilt free on emissions. Nascent value adding industries like battery manufacture and green steel will insist on big subsidies until that well runs dry.

The Koreans probably could build gigawatt reactors faster than us but what they didn't get in the UAE were incessant legal attacks. Unfortunately I think it will take blackouts before opponents tone it down.

Hear, hear and well said, Graham. Yes, there is a lot of hot air around nuclear, and it is all coming from minister Bowen.

We can buy ready to operate nuclear power modules as MSR thorium that are for sale from the Chinese.

And with that purchase by the government, Able to replace aging coal-fired power as multiples of modules replacing coal as the heat source. N.B. Must be done as public amenity to keep price gouging foreign investors out of the loop! Every boy and his dog now knows, what a huge mistake the privatisation of cash cow, public amenity, was!

A mistake never ever be repeated! One only needs look at Korea to know and understand that the only way we once again can become a manufacturing economy is through cheap energy, No ifs, buts or maybes! And MSR thorium does that in spades, with PKWH prices as low or lower than 3 cents!

Let's end the endless prevarication and just get the thing done, then allow the increased economic activity to draw down any debt which by the way can be all internalised and written off by the created and finished assets!

Don't just stand there, do something more than have an inquiry! It's no mistake that Canberra is the hot air ballon capital of the world?
Alan B.

Albanese (Dutton) backs wind-solar (nuclear), carefully ignoring the gas cartel and the massive migration. It's how we do democracy in Australia.

The usual fake limited news garbage.

https://theconversation.com/dutton-wants-a-mature-debate-about-nuclear-power-by-the-time-weve-had-one-new-plants-will-be-too-late-to-replace-coal-224513

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/29/the-australian-newspoll-survey-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-smr-energy-grid-plan

Coal and gas is what we should still becusing instead of sacrificing our economy to China while they use coal, coal, and more coal.

Still, it's good that people seem to be coming around to nuclear, and the Coalition has said that it will go nuclear if elected.

But, the damage to our economy and standard of living has been done, and will get worse before the next election; and, what will the Coalition do, if they are elected, during the time it takes to get nuclear generation up and running.

Forcing myself to watch a few minutes of 'The Project' last night, I was dismayed at those insipid mutts trying to ridicule Dutton & the Nuclear policy. They appeared to act under instructions to ridicule the LNP stand on nuclear. I really doubt that anyone could be so stupid & say what they said.

Well said, Indy.
Alan B.

A great summary of the failure of renewables and the hack job on nuclear by Graham. The CSIRO Gencost report does not include estimates for conventional nuclear power on the basis that larger reactors would be too disruptive to the grid during planned shut downs. The dismissal is almost comical as the report is supportive of intermittent energy sources which by their nature are randomly shut down 70-80% of the time. Unsurprisingly, the report does not consider the disruption this might cause to be at all problematic.

Australia needs to remove the nuclear ban and introduce long term supply contracts as per Western Australia. The disastrous consequences of pursuing intermittent generation are now clear but are being ignored because of ideological zealotry.

In all the discussion about cost of nuclear why is it that none of
those making the most noise ever think of "Calling for Tenders" ?

I think you would have about five companies on your doorstep next morning.

BTW Graham in deciding how much renewable generation is needed you
did not seem to allow capacity to recharge the batteries on the grid.
The batteries would most likely be discharged at night and next
morning the solar gets going around 9am in summer and the grid is
already very busy. Basically a full days capacity is needed.

BIG REACTORS BETTER GIVEN ALL THE GREEN-BROWN POLITICAL OPPOSITION THEY'RE GOING TO COP

Yes, certainly France's nuclear electricity success story is based on building LARGE [1] and MARKET PROVEN reactor designs rather than not yet market proven small designs.

Logic being: if Australian reactor projects are going to be held up for 20 years (minimum) by Green/"Browned Off" (meaning Indigenous) inspired inquiries (and then environmental Bambi + rare little birdy Court Cases)

- it is better you start building a 3 GW reactor complex in the Hunter region - than a piddly modular 300 MW reactor (reliant on a marginal business case) in Wagga Wagga.

[1] French Reactors Now: Checkout the huge size of most French reactors - many over 3 GW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_France#Nuclear

[2] Future French Reactors: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Developments_2011-2022

"In February 2022 president Macron added that the plan includes construction of 14 new large nuclear reactors and extension of life of existing reactors deemed safe and suitable beyond 50 years."

Mavs

That is true Bazz, and I'd bet that Clive Palmer would be one of them. But to enable this government would have to award long term supply contracts (years). The current system will ensure that the power supply becomes more expensive, discontinuous and dysfunctional. Paying intermittent suppliers for power that isn't needed or for power not supplied is insane and not in the interest of consumers.

I reckon the value of Australia going nuclear electricity is (as in France) an excellent way to economise a Dual-Use Nuclear energy and WEAPONS industry.

We need Australian nuclear weapons to divest ourselves of involvement in America's imperial wars.

If it was nuclear energy alone think Turnbull's spurious claims about Snowy 2.0 then triple the deadline and triple budget blow-outs to build reactors.

Checkout http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/07/the-coalition-wants-nuclear-power-could-it-work-or-would-it-be-an-economic-and-logistical-disaster

"...The Coalition is understood to be looking at both conventional large-scale nuclear reactors and small modular reactors (SMR) which are not expected to be available commercially until the early 2030s, or potentially later"

"...In the UK, French company EDF’s 3,200MW Hinkley Point C plant began construction in 2017 and, after several revisions, the company says it may not be delivering electricity until 2031. Initial cost estimates of £18bn (A$34bn) have been revised as high as £46bn (A$89bn)."

"John Quiggin, a professor of economics at the University of Queensland...says one of the only countries to have recently started a nuclear industry is the United Arab Emirates that drew up its first nuclear policy in 2008, commissioning South Korean company Kepco to build four 1,400MW units...these four reactors will likely have cost the UAE as much as $100bn – enough money to put a large solar system on the roof of every Australian house."

Hi Mav,

I'd like to see Prof Quiggins costings. The contract with the South Koreans increased from $20 billion USD to $24 billion USD, so how does he add another $60+ billion AUD to his cost estimate? In the case of renewable energy it is understandable as you need storage, backup generation and regulation systems as well as transmission infrastructure capable of carrying six to eight times the power of the existing grid, whereas with nuclear power you only need the existing transmission infrastructure if you are replacing coal fired power stations.

Everyone adds batteries to the grid thinking that will help.
They forget they have to be recharged. If it is a no wind night
they will be flat. It will need extra solar and wind to charge them
the next day. You cannot charge them off the grid it is busy.
Then what if the next day is overcast and windless, oh dear !
btw ever heard of a "Wind Drought"?

Thanks Graham Young for the article. Good graphs. I think that many of the worlds problems relate to too many people in India, China and Africa. But cheap energy would help to reduce poverty. There is plenty of energy in the universe it's just that it isn't in the ideal form.

So the rumours that Dutton has selected 3 nuclear reactor sites are true - that is the Bungle Bungles [1], Bondi Beach and Byron Bay.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungle_Bungle_Range#History

The minority Liberal Party's nuclear electricity lobby, making outlandish claims, please take note of the following.

71 years ago the Father of the US Nuclear (propulsion) Navy and Father of the US electricity reactor US Atomic Energy Commission, Admiral Rickover, pointed out the nuclear ignorance of the likes of the Liberal Party.

"Admiral Rickover's 'Paper Reactor' Memo" written on June 5, 1953 at http://whatisnuclear.com/rickover.html is as accurate now as it was then. Rickover drew a distinction between:

A. academic paper reactor policy proponents "The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. He has not had to assume any real responsibility in connection with his projects." and

B. those who actually build reactors

"Rickover oversaw the development of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, the [world's] first commercial pressurized water reactor nuclear power [ie. electricity] plant." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Naval_Reactors_and_the_Atomic_Energy_Commission

Wrote Rickover in 1953:

A. "An academic reactor...almost always has the following basic characteristics:

1. It is simple.
2. It is small.
3. It is cheap.
4. It is light.
5. It can be built very quickly.
6. It is very flexible in purpose (“omnibus reactor”)
7. Very little development is required. It will use mostly “off-the-shelf” components.
8. The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now."
[eg. there is still no built SMR for sale on the market.]

B. "On the other hand, a practical reactor plant can be distinguished by the following characteristics:

1. It is being built now.
2. It is behind schedule.
3. It is requiring an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a problem.
4. It is very expensive.
5. It takes a long time to build because of the engineering development problems.
6. It is large.
7. It is heavy.
8. It is complicated."

Does all that sound familiar?

The biggest killer, what majority of voters in a town, city, state or Electorate will welcome a reactor in their "backyard"?

Unless a national nuclear industry has dual-use civilian and nuclear weapons purposes (as with the US, UK and French reactor beginners) reactors won't pay their way politically, economically or strategically.