I just heard Albo say on the TV Ch2, that nuclear power plants
cannot be turned up or down. ie they are fixed output !
Presumably this is part of their argument against them.
Just points up what I said days ago, don't let politicians make
decisions on things like this.

So whats the story?
Small modular reactors built adjacent to existing power stations and jacking into the existing transmission lines?
Is that right?

Not full proper reactors, so baby steps?
Yeah I'm ok with it, but whats the price tag and timeline?
Dutton's finally found himself a hot political issue, good for him.

Perhaps Australia should use those Subs as portable power stations until a couple of land based plants can be commissioned ?

John,

You have conceded many technical challenges that wind and solar need to overcome to power the grid. As optimistic as you are about solutions being developed, it is an admission by you that wind and solar are not yet capable of doing this. As I have frequently pointed out, the French powered their grid with nuclear one and a half times over in fifteen years starting nearly fifty years ago. Why should such a feat not be possible today, especially as I am always reading of the catastrophe that awaits the world if carbon emissions aren't reduced?

My interest in wind and solar subsided greatly when I learned that long lived nuclear produced dispatchable power at a cost similar to the intermittent output of the former.

Have you given much thought about what it would take to make wind and solar dispatchable, aside from the six to eight times overbuild? An electrical grid capable of carrying over 300 gigawatts and generators or batteries capable of handling well over 200 gigawatts would be on your shopping list. Think 100 Snowy hydros of generating capacity.

I think I'd sooner believe in perpetual motion, or at least drought-proofing the nation with a network of pipes, than I would believe it possible to power Australia with wind and solar alone. Believing it possible to do so at a fraction the cost of nuclear would make the Easter Bunny a credible entity.

Hi AC'

"Yeah I'm ok with it, but whats the price tag and timeline?"

Adi Paterson gives a good take on nuclear and suggests it would take 12 years to get a reactor up and running. Also said that the last reactor in the UAE took 5 1/2 years to build (1400mw).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J50hWO2DKHc

Small Modular Reactors are a lot quicker to set up, maybe 2 years, but yes larger reactors generally take around 6 - 8 years.

The large 2.4 Gw plant in Bangladesh looks like it took 8.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Rosatom has 3 units in Russia and 33 abroad at various implementation stages.

Check out NuScale SMR
http://interactive.nuscalepower.com/ai/p/1
I showed you all this company some time back.
The government could've saved 5 times the cost if they had've just bought up stock in January.
Up from $2 to $10 in 5 months.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=NYSE+SMR+chart