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.