Another article trying to spin cost;
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/feder...5jn0i.html
Even if you took the worst case this article makes, $35B for a multi-Gigawatt scale nuclear power plant, that still means we could 8 or 9 of them for the isolated cost of household off-grid SolarPV! :o That's households alone which is just 10% of the market, but 8 to 9 large scale nuclear plants would supply base load for the whole country.
The figures being used in the article are not new, they are the same old distorted rubbish that does nobody any favours. The low renewables energy cost is the subsidised cost distributed over an unrealistic best case scenario lifetime for SolarPV, and compared to the worst case capital cost of nuclear over an unrealistically short lifetime, adding in ridiculous overhead costs for huge volumes of waste that will never exist in volume or raioactivity.*
*They frequently use the total volume of waste, choosing the waste with the longest half-life, but the reality there is a spectrum of waste from nuclear plants with widely varying half-life, much of it having very short half-life and functionally safe for low level storage within 20 years. And even the volume of the really problematic stuff is low compared to the total volume of waste. I've heard nuclear scientists from the NSW reactor describe that the really hazardous stuff from enough plants to supply the whole country for 300 years would fit comfortable in the area of an average house block not that you would store it like that, but that's the volume of the really hazardous stuff for our whole country!
In any case new technologies exist to turn the really hazardous stuff in new types of fuel for future use in technologies such as space exploration. At the moment NASA and Russia have a monopoly supplying these Nuclear Battery / RTG energy sources, but ESA is just about to start.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/feder...5jn0i.html
Even if you took the worst case this article makes, $35B for a multi-Gigawatt scale nuclear power plant, that still means we could 8 or 9 of them for the isolated cost of household off-grid SolarPV! :o That's households alone which is just 10% of the market, but 8 to 9 large scale nuclear plants would supply base load for the whole country.
The figures being used in the article are not new, they are the same old distorted rubbish that does nobody any favours. The low renewables energy cost is the subsidised cost distributed over an unrealistic best case scenario lifetime for SolarPV, and compared to the worst case capital cost of nuclear over an unrealistically short lifetime, adding in ridiculous overhead costs for huge volumes of waste that will never exist in volume or raioactivity.*
*They frequently use the total volume of waste, choosing the waste with the longest half-life, but the reality there is a spectrum of waste from nuclear plants with widely varying half-life, much of it having very short half-life and functionally safe for low level storage within 20 years. And even the volume of the really problematic stuff is low compared to the total volume of waste. I've heard nuclear scientists from the NSW reactor describe that the really hazardous stuff from enough plants to supply the whole country for 300 years would fit comfortable in the area of an average house block not that you would store it like that, but that's the volume of the really hazardous stuff for our whole country!
In any case new technologies exist to turn the really hazardous stuff in new types of fuel for future use in technologies such as space exploration. At the moment NASA and Russia have a monopoly supplying these Nuclear Battery / RTG energy sources, but ESA is just about to start.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"