Thanks John Daysh, your position is much the same as mine, nuclear only if it ticks all the appropriate boxes. The federal Opposition seem to be digging themselves into a hole on this nuclear proposal. Its more of a thought bubble on their part, rather than solid policy, with so many, and so much against it, I don't think it will ever fly.

Overnight the US Senate passed by a margin of 88-2 a bill already passed by the House of Representatives called the ADVANCE Act. Its expect Biden will sign it into law.

The Act will "accelerate the deployment of nuclear energy capacity, including by speeding permitting and creating new incentives for advanced nuclear reactor technologies."

"Expanding nuclear power has broad bipartisan support, with Democrats seeing it as critical to decarbonizing the power sector to fight climate change and Republicans viewing it as a way to ensure reliable electricity supply and create jobs." (Reuters)

Decarbonise + Jobs....what's not to like.

There are currently 51 nuclear plants under construction world-wide which of course follows the COP28 declaration to triple nuclear capacity by 2050.

Australia will eventually catch on and catch up....but only we've made all available mistakes.

Fester,

Yes, the delays and cost overruns of the nuclear projects in Finland and the U.S. can be attributed in part to the Fukushima disaster and the complexities of first-of-a-kind constructions. And yes, nuclear reactors built before 1990 were often completed in around five years due to a more favourable regulatory environment and different technological standards.

However, the energy landscape has significantly changed since then. Today, nuclear projects face stricter safety regulations, more complex technology requirements, and higher public scrutiny, all contributing to longer construction times and higher costs. These factors are important to consider when evaluating the feasibility of rapidly expanding nuclear power today.

Regarding power output, while nuclear plants can provide substantial and consistent power, making wind and solar dispatchable involves additional costs and infrastructure for energy storage and grid integration. Yet, the costs of these technologies are decreasing rapidly. Advances in battery technology, smart grids, and other storage solutions are making it increasingly feasible to integrate large amounts of renewable energy into the grid.

Countries pursuing wind and solar have faced challenges with higher power prices during the transition phase. However, the long-term trend shows a decrease in costs due to economies of scale and technological advancements. For instance, the cost of solar power has dropped by more than 80% over the past decade, and wind power costs have also seen significant reductions.

Italy and Finland's renewed interest in nuclear power reflects the complexity of energy choices each country must make based on its unique circumstances. In Finland, despite the high costs of recent projects, nuclear power enjoys strong public support due to its role in providing reliable and low-carbon energy.

So, while nuclear power can provide significant and consistent energy, the claim that it is faster to build than wind or solar, considering all factors, remains debatable and unlikely. The rapid advancements and decreasing costs in renewable technologies, coupled with their modular and scalable nature, offer a viable path for many countries. For others, a balanced energy strategy comprising both nuclear and renewables, tailored to the specific conditions and goals of each country, is likely necessary.

Paul1405,

Yes, the federal Opposition's nuclear proposal does seem a bit underdeveloped at this stage. Given the strong opposition and the numerous challenges, I would agree that it's unlikely to gain the traction it needs to become a viable policy.

Whether or not nuclear has a "future" in Australia is not the question to be asked. The really important question is, does Australia itself have any reasonable future with wind an solar, without the backup of nuclear, gas or coal?

The current cost of renewable energy not just to domestic users, but to industry - some of which has already gone - suggests that the answer is NO - Australia does not have a future as good as the past that our political class is determined to overturn.

John, in your comparison you have omitted the cost of replacing from
the start all the wind and solar when it is finished.
It will be then time to go back to the first installations and start
replacing them.
The $9Billion Finland paid multiplied by seven = $63 Billion looks
like a bargain to me compared to the $Trillions needed for W/S battery backup.
Just been called for morning tea, will be back.