OR, is it simply political "pie in the sky" being peddled by Peter Dutton and a Coalition which has no creditable energy policy. Given the lack of policy information from Pete and the gang, and the general ridicule from all quarters for nuclear power in Australia it would seem the latter is the case.

Paul,

The other side of the question is "Can Australia power the grid with wind and solar and how much would it cost?". Going by some of the estimates I've seen, the cost of nuclear is cheaper than the cost of storage for wind and solar, and that is using CSIRO cost estimates for nuclear power.

Good on you for raising a subject that is critical for Australia's future.

Hi Paul,

You want to know - is there a role for nuclear in
Australia's energy?

According to CSIRO Gencost Project that reports annually
on best Australian and global data applied to Australian
conditions shows that nuclear is the most expensive option.

We're told that:

"The key determinant of any future role for nuclear in
Australia is time-scales."

"Even given the social licence to build a regulatory
framework which might take 5 years, it might take another
ten years to construct a nuclear power station."

" Large-scale nuclear power has no realistic prospect of
playing any role in Australia either for coal replacement
by 2040 or as a back stop for renewables beyond. This
raises one final prospect - building nuclear reactors at
smaller scale - so called small modular reactors - (SMRs)."

Public opinion on nuclear power has fluctuated with a
recent 2022 poll being in favour of removing the ban on
nuclear power.

The Federal Opposition has now put nuclear power back on
the political agenda.

Here's a link from - the Reporter - at ANU:

http://reporter.anu.edu.au/all-stories/is-there-a-role-for-nuclear-in-australias-energy-transition

We're told that in 2024 - the Australian public opinion
is firmly set for combating climate change by replacing
fossil fuels with clean energy.

This is a debate certainly worth having.

There's a few problems that have been noted with
nuclear power:

1) It poses significant community, environment, and
health risks.

2) It's about 5-10 times more expensive than solar and
wind.

3) Managing long-lived radioactive waste.

4) Mining uranium (the fuel for nuclear power) damages
the environment and leaves a toxic legacy of radio active
waste that disproportionately impacts traditional owners
and remote communities.

5) Nuclear requires a lot of water and on such a dry continent
as ours this really isn't an option.

6) All nuclear reactors create waste- we have no proven options
for managing long-lived radioactive waste which is a massive
inter-generational burden.

Personally I would prefer Australia's energy future to be
renewable not radioactive.

If that is all true Foxy, then why is France producing power at lower cost than Germany? France was able to supply 150% of its power demand in fifteen years with nuclear from the mid 1970s. After fifteen years of pursuing renewables, Germany is barely over 25% intermittent and variable wind and solar. There are very good reasons why nuclear power is attracting more interest.