John,

If your view that wind and solar are quicker and cheaper, then how is it that France built 150% of its power supply in fifteen years from the mid 1970s whereas Germany has built about 25% non-dispatchable wind and solar in the past fifteen years? Further, France exports 3 billion euros of power a year whereas Germany pays hundreds on millions a year in fines for its carbon emissions. Also, French nuclear power costs about a third of German renewable power.

The link I provided gives a good explanation of why nuclear is a faster and less costly option than wind and solar using real examples.

https://medium.com/generation-atomic/is-nuclear-too-slow-to-deploy-compared-to-wind-and-solar-443d0c326184

"We don't need distractions like nuclear to derail
the progress now."

Maybe the distraction is the fantasy that you can power a national grid with wind and solar?

Fester,

France's impressive achievement, in building 150% of its power supply through nuclear energy in 15 years, was made possible by specific conditions, such as strong political support, substantial state investment, and a centralised energy strategy. These conditions are less common today, making such rapid nuclear expansion more challenging. Additionally, France's initial success occurred decades ago when the regulatory environment was different, and the economic and technological landscapes were less complex.

In contrast, Germany's Energiewende aims to phase out nuclear power and increase reliance on renewables like wind and solar. While Germany has faced higher costs and emissions during the transition, it has made significant progress. The deployment of renewables in Germany has led to substantial growth in wind and solar capacity, even if the overall percentage is lower than France’s nuclear capacity. The renewable energy sector's decentralised and modular nature allows for rapid, smaller-scale deployments that can be scaled up incrementally.

Cost-wise, French nuclear power has been cheaper. However, this comparison often omits the full lifecycle costs, including decommissioning and long-term waste management, which are substantial for nuclear power. In contrast, the costs of wind and solar have dramatically decreased due to technological advancements and economies of scale, making them increasingly competitive.

As for deployment speed, recent evidence suggests that modern nuclear projects often face significant delays and cost overruns, such as the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in Finland and the Vogtle reactors in the U.S. In comparison, wind and solar projects typically have much shorter and more predictable construction timelines. The modular and scalable nature of renewable energy projects allows for phased deployments and faster integration into the grid.

Regarding the economic aspects, France’s ability to export electricity and generate revenue contrasts with Germany's current reliance on coal, leading to higher emissions and fines. However, as Germany continues to expand its renewable capacity and enhance grid integration and storage solutions, it aims to significantly reduce these emissions.

I hope this clarifies things.

I think were past the point of having the luxury of good ideals.
Australia will not be saved by loading it to the hilt with newcomers.
We need cheap energy, even if we have to start burning tyres and garbage.
We don't make anything much of our own anymore, most of the things in everyones homes are items manufactured and purchased from foreign shores.

Rosatom built a 2.5 Gw nuclear reactor in Bangladesh for US$12.65 bln
We'd have been better off buying nuclear power plants from Russia than stupid nuclear submarines from the US. They won't save us, let the US buy it's own subs to fight it's own wars.

Goodness me, some read their old newspapers for info.
Germany is getting ready to restart their nuclear power stations.
The wind drought two years back brought them all down to earth.
No battery could keep a country going for a year or more.

The key argument is cost. That could be decided very quickly by
calling for tenders for either four 500 megawatt SMRs or a 2Gw large
scale station on the Liddel site.

That would stop the argument in its tracks.

Unlike Europe we do not have a neighbour like France so we either
make it work or die gathering firewood.

Anyway as soon as the blackouts start the only question will be
where are Albo and Bowen when we need them !

Bezza,

While there may be discussions about nuclear in Germany, it is an exaggeration to say that Germany's getting ready to restart its nuclear power stations. Germany's primary focus remains on transitioning to renewable energy and improving grid integration and storage solutions to address any energy shortages or reliability issues.

Regarding costs, calling for tenders for either small modular reactors or a large-scale station on the Liddell site could indeed provide valuable data. It's important to remember, though, that nuclear energy projects often face significant delays and cost overruns, as seen with recent projects in Finland and the U.S.

You're correct in saying that our energy strategy needs to be self-sufficient, given our geographical location. Investing in a diverse energy mix, including renewables, storage solutions, and possibly nuclear, could provide a balanced approach to ensuring energy security.

Yes, you read that right. For what it's worth, I'm not anti-nuclear and have not staked out a position in the anti-nuclear camp. For all it's potential issues, nuclear power remains a superior option to coal. But that doesn't mean I won't add nuance to discussions on the topic when I see it missing.

John,

Delays and cost overruns in Finland and the US related to the impact of Fukushima and them being first of a kind constructions. Reactors were built in around five years prior to 1990. In terms of power output, the construction time for nuclear is still faster than nondispatchable wind and solar, and remember that to make wind and solar dispatchable entails a lot more time and cost.

Countries pursuing wind and solar have higher power prices and are at economic disadvantage to countries pursuing nuclear. Italy looks like in will embrace nuclear again after abandoning it in 1990, and in Finland, despite its expensive reactor, nuclear power has 94% support.