http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/we-wont-be-going-nuclear-rudd/story-e6frg6nf-1225831551975

It is dawning on the rest of the world that without nuclear any ETS cannot work. Is Rudd too mired in the past when voters were scared of nuclear, that his slim majority might slip away?

We need a leader with cajones that does not need to pander to the looney green party to make a decision. Going nuclear is never popular, but it is the least of the evils available.

Or maybe Rudd has the hubris to believe he must be right and the rest of the world is wrong.

We will be going Nuclear and if not Rudd it will be his party that leads after changing its mind.
We have no other path.
Quaint thou that rest of the world stuff.
Abbott is unaware the rest of the world is going for ETA schemes but we can ignore what we do not like cannot we shadow.
Nuclear is the future cleaner safe as any other and watch America boom for using it, Kevin waky waky bloke.

Perhaps Rudd simply doesn't want to subsidise the nuclear industry to the tune of USD$8.3 Billion in government guaranteed funding to get the first ones built, as the US now finds itself having to do.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/16/obama-nuclear-loan.html

As you can see for the story, that is just the first drop in the bucket. The US government is planning to inject some $50 Billion over time.

I could have sworn yesterday you were complaining Labour was spending too much money.

It appears the money is going to fund two AP1000 reactors. Anticipated cost in $7B per reactor, each reactor generates 1.1GW.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/obama-administration-announces-loan-guarantees-construct-new-nuclear-power-reactors
http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2010/02/15/daily8.html

The AP1000 isn't anything special. Just your standard, low efficiency dirty reactor generating wastes that last geological time scales. Remember me saying if the world flipped over all electical generation to this type of reactor, we would run out of fuel for them in a few decades. You said current designs are better now. Apparently not.

In trying to find why that $8B was needed, I came across a startling statistic. Apparently 42% of new capacity added to the US last year was wind. They are aiming for about 20% of the total from wind in 2030, which is as high as they can go unless some magical solution to the storage problem is found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States

You can see why they would prefer wind, once you learn the capital cost for wind is around $1/W, or $4/W once you allow for the fact that they average 25% efficiency. Capital cost for these reactors is $7/W just for construction. Then you add around $1/W to pull them down, plus waste disposal costs.

Anyway these numbers - $8B, $50B, they are enormous, and they don't even give you a long term solution. I presume the development effort required to create a practical reactor that is a long term solution is of the same order. If Rudd's plan is to let someone else spend that money, and then take delivery of a working nuclear solution, I'd say he has it exactly right.

I could be wrong but wasn't the last reactor built 30 years ago and nothing has been built since? The issues of liability, insurance and REinsurance are significant. Not to mention the time frames.

Is this why AREVA just bought Ausra Inc (CLFR solar thermal steam plant technology) for a reported $418million?

Rudd is a dinosaur for many other reasons.....

By now everybody understands that Rudd could never make a decision.
This sad person is clearly unable think beyond the square.
His bosses in China have told him what to do,sell out Australian and their interests.
His will to persue Chinese energy technology will mean he will never accept anything that is Australian,European or American.
The quicker a clear thinking Gillard becomes the PM the better for all Australians.

Rstuart,

Because of its haphazard approach, and the reengineering and approval from scratch of nearly every project, the construction costs of nuclear in the US are nearly double that of anywhere else.

The cost in Europe per W is closer to $4000 (Far less in France and in China and India about $1300), Similarily, the cost of wind power both in the US and Europe is closer to $2000/W. (maybe you forgot the transmission requirements.)

When the 25% efficiency is taken into account this makes wind nearly double the cost of nuclear. Then finally as you alluded to, that the wind generation is completely out of synch with the demand requires back up base load generation (nuclear) if the generation exceeds 20%of total.

Considering that power demand is projected to increase by nearly 20% by 2020 wind only gives us about a decade's breathing space, before the cost of storage doubles the total cost of wind generation again.

As far as fuel supply goes, the few decades calculation is based on discovered low cost reserves a decade ago. If the price is doubled (to 0.2 c/kWhr) and recent discoveries added the reserves are sufficient for centuries for these older type reactors.

As far as the next generation reactors, nearly all those going into China and India are of CANDU type format, and can consume the spent fuel. Given the labyrinthian approval procedures in the USA, the older type generators are far cheaper to install.