Chris Bowen flippantly claimed that nuclear power is the most expensive power in the world. However, the comparison against other renewable power systems conveniently forgets that nuclear power stations today have a > 60-year life span and need far less investment in network distribution or battery back up.

"The nuclear debate in Australia has entered a new phase. While opinion polls show a clear majority of Australians support nuclear power, there are still dyed-in-the-wool opponents who will not concede that issues such as radiation and waste disposal that once dogged the industry have been resolved. Defeated by the facts and public opinion, they have moved recently to create a false claim that nuclear costs too much, even the emerging new-generation small modular reactors.

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen seems to be of this view. Perhaps he has been influenced by a report published by the CSIRO in July that concluded just that. While this institution deserves the highest respect for its work in science, regrettably its opinions on the economics of SMRs, which have the latest nuclear technology, are open to challenge."

I don't know Bowen personally, but he presents in public as someone on the verge of nervous breakdown. I don’t see how anyone could take him or anything he says seriously. He was probably Albanese’s first big mistake; the rest are coming.

Let's get back to coal, the cheapest there is, and we already have it. We'll be dead broke before nuclear-power could be up and running.

"that issues such as radiation and waste disposal that once dogged the industry have been resolved." Resolved by whom,

BTW hows the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine going these days. "Fears nearby fighting could trigger a catastrophe in a country still haunted by the Chernobyl disaster."

SM should be guarding the reactors at Zaporizhzhia if there are no problems as he claims.

Nothing wrong with coal but everything's wrong with people who can't curb their excesses !
Sustainable use of coal is just that, sustainable !
Frivolous & excessive usage of every available commodity be it needed or not is what's contributing to climate change & causing the decline in the planet's health !
if anything should be curbed it's the selfish people among humans !
From parents & teachers who fail our young to scientists who fail the planet to war mongers & industrialists & megalomaniacs who pollute our environment for mere profit to please the just as selfish public everyone is guilty !

Australia has zero capacity to develop nuclear power thanks to the neglect of the major parties. If it were decided to develop nuclear power now, Australia would be at the end of a long queue.

What would make more sense would be to build modern high efficiency coal generation that could be converted to nuclear. This would allow a faster transition to nuclear power should some of the fourth gen reactors be proven viable.

On a global scale Australia's emission is below negligible, on a local scale the impact from pollution is already too high !
Bringing in more migrants who desert the mess they helped create in the countries of their birth & continuing the practice here is not helping the environment here either.
Nuclear power should be prioritised in Australia on a small scale with several plants spread over the continent assisting manufacturing rather than a huge one that is difficult to manage in the event of an emergency. Wind farms are too costly for the environment & fauna in general.

I normally considered that nuclear would be the most expensive form
of electricity generation.
It can still look that way until you start to take the duplication
of renewables needed to generate for the highest load that occurs
in a year for every night with low wind speeds, or indeed no wind.
In a continent the size of Australia, you might find enough wind
somewhere to cover the peak time 5pm to 10pm. You might if lucky.
However you need to do better than good luck.
As I see it, it needs a program of installing hundreds of weather
stations around Australia in all the most likely spots and connecting
them to a central computer programmed to simulate the Australian
grid and see over a year or two if it ever fails to supply electricity
in some part of Australia.
The number of theoretical wind turbines on different sites can be
adjusted until it achieves 100% supply 100% of the time over a couple of years.
That is what coal, gas and nuclear can do, so surely we should not
accept less.
We will then know beyond argument which is the cheapest.
Surely a great project for CSIRO.

The village idiot does not appear to read. The SMR reactors are small and inherently safe reactors that cannot explode. The storage of waste is not a factor unless the green nutjobs make it one.

If one considers the full cost of renewable power, then nuclear is cheaper.

If one considers the full cost of renewable power, then nuclear is cheaper.
shadowminister,
What the pro-renewable crowd doesn't grasp is the fact that renewables are extremely effort demanding & polluting in an environmental sense. Nuclear is the cleanest & if kept contained to small plants it's very likely the safest, most efficient method to provide for the demand.
Renewables are nothing but a polluting wet dream for the tossers rejected by real Academia !

Indyvidual

Australia need only invest in cheap and reliable power, but that cannot happen unless there is an energy supply framework such as Western Australia's.

As for nuclear, we will have to wait for the gen 4 designs to be built and tested. If they prove successful it will probably be decades before we could get them, and all the anti-nukes would be out in force to stop that from happening. I agree that gen3s are very profitable in the long run, but with the energy supply framework and political reticence, I cannot see that happening either.

There is some promising tech out there, like this for example, founded by Bill Gates.
http://www.terrapower.com/
Problem is that guy has too much power, he has too much control at the WHO as he's their largest contributor, and he's bought out a large amount of farmland in the US.

You really don't want one guy having that much control over food, energy and global heath.

But beyond those issues, yes I'd support it.
The only way to make our nation more competitive internationally is reduce wages, transport or energy costs.

If we used river water to cool the reactors as France does, you could end up with ecological problems, algae outbreaks and fish deaths in higher temperatures which would limit their use though.

I think that nuclear power is a greater challenge than some believe.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/world-nuclear-performance-report/case-studies/htr-pm.aspx

If Bill Gates wants to spend his money on research reactors then good luck to him. The current anti-nuclear sentiment reminds me of the anti-science sentiment of the Catholic Church many centuries ago.

I think that nuclear power is a greater challenge than some believe.
Fester,
Why not simply have small plants akin to aircraft carrier or submarine capacity ? I mean most power requirements are coastal so why not base the designs on that ?

Hey Fester,
Here's a couple of others I've heard of as well.

Compact Molten Salt Reactors
http://www.seaborg.com/

NuScale is working on floating reactors.
http://www.powermag.com/nuscale-exploring-marine-deployed-smr-power-plant/

NuScale is leading the world into the future of energy and making history with our groundbreaking small modular reactor (SMR)—the first ever to receive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission design approval. In this video, you're invited to tour the VOYGR Power Plant Control Room Simulator, Integral System Test Facility and our Upper Module Mockup Facility.

They're building a reactor in Romania.
http://www.nuscalepower.com/projects
Here's a video about NuScale's technology.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/brr5j50umYA

Indyvidual,

I agree with you re the smrs as being far more suitable for faster deployment, but the designs still need to be built and tested, and if they work there will be a long waiting list. Australia has shown zero commitment to nuclear power, so I think we would be at the end of the queue.

AC

Yes, many interesting designs, but no R&D for forty years in western countries thanks to the commie greenies, so lots of catching up to do.

Indy,

They are working on designs of about 100-200MW.

The new Ford-class aircraft carrier has 2 x 800MW reactors.

The new SMRs can be built on a ship and sit off shore.

Abilene Christian university is building a 1 MW molten salt research reactor.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Application-submitted-for-US-molten-salt-research

Could you imagine this happening here? I am very enthusiastic about nuclear power and the potential of gen 4 designs, but I think you would sooner convince the Pope to build a condom factory than have an Australian government pursue a nuclear powered future.

Meanwhile you don’t need nuclear weapons, a conventional bomb on a nuclear power installation will do the job.

The real problem is that a privately run facility would turn out too costly in Australia & a State-run plant would not be manned by competent operators !
Just get a decommissioned submarine run by retired submariners & put it into a lake & presto-affordable power !

Old open cut mines could perhaps make perfect cooling systems for small nuclear power plants !

"Just get a decommissioned submarine run by retired submariners & put it into a lake & presto-affordable power !" - Indyvidual

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! Now I have heard it all, a clapped out nuclear tub sitting in a lake somewhere, run by a bunch of silly old oompa loompa's. No doubt they would be under the command of Captain Hassy Bilgewater. As I said; Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Captain Hassy Bilgewater
Paul1405,
He actually was a real Captain whereas you're a mere incompetent bureaudroid hell-bent on fighting against good will & integrity !
Why ? Well, only you & those who indoctrinated you know that !

Of course we should be building the latest coal plants. Not only the cheapest power available, but free fertaliser for nature & our crops.

On that free fertaliser, & where it actually comes from. A few years back a paper on CO2 sources was published by a Japanese group reporting on findings from a new satellite.

They found a huge plume of CO2 emitted by the Amazon to be the greatest anywhere. Next came Borneo & Indonesia, followed by north Queensland rain forest areas. It was way down the list that the first industrial city appeared.

This report disappeared very quickly, greenies wouldn't want their narrative that trees consume CO2 destroyed by facts. I wonder what road gang those researchers are now on driving a pick & shovel?