The other advantage of nuclear power, aside from it being cheaper, less polluting and more reliable than renewables, is that it can be built far more quickly than renewables. This makes sense as with the high capacity factor of nuclear (>90%), you only need about a sixth the generating capacity as wind/solar. Nor do you need the batteries, back up power generation, extra grid infrastructure and power regulation systems. What is needed for a stand alone national renewable energy supply isn't known, because it is still a fantasy concept. Aidan should try to seek accurate information rather than accepting the propaganda of psychotically anti-nuclear greens and the renewable energy lobby.

Fester,
You claim nuclear can be built quickly, so why isn't that happening? Lots of solar and wind power infrastructure's going up quickly, but new nuclear plants are taking many years to build and costing enormous amounts. Look at Hinkley Point C: do you really think they'd be building it if they could construct nuclear power stations quickly and cheaply elsewhere?

And in practice you may well need batteries to make nuclear power financially viable. The lack of load following ability was the biggest factor in British Energy going bust around the turn of the millennium.

Iceland gets practically all its electricity from renewables. But a stand alone national nuclear energy supply is still a fantasy concept.

Nowhere did I suggest putting the electricity supply at the beck and call of a foreign power.

I am well aware the European Super Grid plan has not come to fruition. Nor have any of the other centrally planned supergrids (with the arguable exception of the Soviet grid) yet. Nevertheless, locally planned connections between the grids of adjacent nations have created a supergrid spanning from Ireland to Singapore.

Considering converting ammonia to H2 and N2 increases pressure but absorbs heat, I'd expect doing that before burning would actually increase efficiency. And yes, the efficiency of blue hydrogen is terrible, but green hydrogen does not have that problem.

And your trying to fudge capacity factors reminds me very much of a time a few years ago when anti wind power people were "converting" non energy inputs to energy inputs in order to achieve an EROEI figure below 7 (which they wrongly claimed was the minimum needed to power an advanced society). 'Tis much better to accept that CF is just a ratio, and the real limits are what can be done profitably.

"Nowhere did I suggest putting the electricity supply at the beck and call of a foreign power."

But that is what happens when you import your power from another country via a super grid.

"but green hydrogen does not have that problem"

It sure does Aidan. e.g.

"According to Recharge calculations, each tonne of green ammonia requires 14.38MWh of renewable energy to produce using standard processes, yet would only generate 1.96MWh when burned in a coal-fired power plant (presuming a steam turbine generator efficiency of 38%)"

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/-expensive-greenwash-first-international-hydrogen-based-tender-launched-to-import-green-or-blue-ammonia-to-japan/2-1-1172692

China takes about five years to build a nuclear power plant. Why would it take other nations decades? Don’t developments of critical importance take place more quickly in a crisis? The main hurdle for nuclear is political. Consider that the Manhattan project went from theory to bomb in about four years. Thankfully Roosevelt took the advice of Einstein instead of Eugene. You can view a copy of Eugene’s letter in the presidential library. Here is a cut and paste.

Dear Prez,

It has come to my attention via some commie spies that you are considering researching the concept of a nuclear bomb. I strongly urge you to reconsider this waste of resources in these desperate times. It is the considered opinion of many learned physicists that such a device is theoretically impossible. Even if it were possible, it would likely take many decades to develop, long after the war with the Axis countries is predicted to have ended. Further, it is believed that such a device would not provide a significant advantage in an armed conflict, as it would very likely have little more power than conventional explosives and would only be available in small numbers due to the extreme cost and complexity of production. Also, such devices would be extremely unstable, making them very likely to spontaneously detonate long before reaching their targets.

Clearly it would be far more sensible to progress the war effort with expenditure on conventional weapons.

Sincerely and Respectfully,

Dr Eugene Drippydumbdoofus

President of the Psychotically Anti-nuclear, Snake Oil Renewables and Idiotic Thought Coalition

Fester, I think one of the problems of renewables for many countries
is that the possible generation capacity varies exponentially to the
inverse of the area of the country.
I suspect that is one reason that Germany has problems with renewables
being such a small country.
If West Australia was connected to our grid it would be a great improvement.

Bazz, I have no interest in fudging data. I just want to cut through all the smoke and mirrors of the spruikers of any persuasion. Iceland is a tiny country, but it has good hydroelectric and geothermal (not exploiting wind or solar Aidan) resources. Not relevant for Australia unless you can grow mountain ranges, reactivate volcanoes and increase rainfall. Tassie could dam the Franklin, but Dr Bob and his gremlins might have some objections.

France could have gone 100% nuclear but for political constraints. Ideology seems to be the basis for decision making with power supply. That is dangerous.

Fester,
>But that is what happens when you import your power from another country via a super grid.
No it isn't, and that kind of misunderstanding is probably a big part of why the centrally planned super grid proposals never took off.

What really happens is that you import power at some times of day and export it at others, to take advantage of price variations due to supply and demand fluctuations. Even when there's a massive electricity trade imbalance, the multiple links of a supergrid reduce the chance of one country being totally dependent on another.

I concede that using conventionally produced green ammonia in the way Japan proposes really is that inefficient.

IIRC it took around 8 years to get Hinkley Point C approved, and it's taking roughly that long to build it. There's a documentary about it on SBS.

And your attempt at satire is even worse than Paul's, and that's saying a lot.