Australia's Nuclear Future | Chris Uhlmann, Helen Cook, Adi Paterson and Aidan Morrison

Leading organisations in the energy space have taken a single minded approach to the energy transition. They view weather dependent renewables as the sole option for a cleaner grid.
This unwillingness to look at all alternatives to fossil fuels has led to gaps in the scientific reasoning.
Experts Helen Cook, Chris Uhlmann, Adi Paterson and Aidan Morrison spoke at a recent CIS lunch where they laid out a clear path forward for nuclear energy.
They looked at what Australia can learn from other countries' energy transition. And they answered some of the most pressing questions in the nuclear debate: how long and how much? This isn’t just about lifting bans or debating renewables; it’s about envisioning a feasible, practical path to nuclear energy.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS promotes free choice and individual liberty and the open exchange of ideas. CIS encourages debate among leading academics, politicians, media and the public. We aim to make sure good policy ideas are heard and seriously considered so that Australia can prosper. Follow CIS on our Socials;
Twitter - / cisoz
Facebook - / centreindependentstudies
Linkedin - / the-centre-for-indepen...
Telegram - t.me/centreforindependentstudies
📖 Read more from CIS here: www.cis.org.au/
💬 Join in the conversation in the comments.
👍 Like this video if you enjoyed it and want to see more, it really helps us out!
🔔 Subscribe to our channel and click the bell to watch our videos first: / @cisaus
⏲️ Missed this event live? Subscribe to CIS to be up to date with all our events:
www.cis.org.au/subscribe/
📝 Subscribe to CIS mailing list- www.cis.org.au/subscribe/
💳 Support us with a tax-deductible donation at - www.cis.org.au/support/

[@cbrhubs9245]

Come on Australia, time to grow up.

[@info88w11]

Nuclear is a proven and safe form of energy for major first-world economies used successfully and reliably in practice for over 50 years (e.g. France, Canada, etc.) and we have an abundance of uranium resource which we already export. This should be a bipartisan solution and a sure path to prosperity and higher living standards.

[@naomieyles210]

Nuclear would a great solution for the 2040s. Unfortunately, we need a solution for large scale electricity supply now, this decade, so HVDC interconnectors fit our time frame requirements to replace coal, whereas nuclear doesn't fit our time frame. HVDC is proven out in Europe, already paying for itself while in progress to building out the European super grid. HVDC is also perfect for continuing growing needs for electricity supply. HVDC is also a good fit for our duck curve demand/supply, whereas nuclear is a bad fit. Nuclear is a good fit for 24/7 constant power needs in heavy industrial processes, which is part of Victoria's rapidly approaching crisis in running out of gas. For that niche case, nuclear is very much worth considering. For Australia's energy needs in general, nuclear simply doesn't scratch the right itch.

[@jimgraham6722]

​@@naomieyles210 Sadly HVDC no use at all without a huge expansion in wind and solar to feed in as well as lots of $$$s. The labor govt has made it clear that what we will get is COG ie. no progress at all

[@naomieyles210]

​@@jimgraham6722 Agree, except that adding wind and solar is the easy part of the equation. It's market ready and the free-market is well able to supply the need, provided they can overcome regulatory hurdles and get a high voltage connection to the grid. The missing piece is grid and interconnectors, but that's all doable on short timescales.

[@jimgraham6722]

@@naomieyles210 Good points but for me it is as much about national strategy as economics. In this regard wind, solar, their storage mechanisms and grid infrastructure have their points of vulnerability, particularly when you look at the needs of industry and transport. In this regard a diversity of energy sources and various ways to connect the system up is very important. Nuclear energy is important because it greatly diversifies and strengthens the energy system, particularly for industry. Having said that, rooftop solar PV with batteries for residential and small business use is an excellent way of achieving a strong diversified system for that sector. We need a lot more of it. This also helps put downwards pressure on domestic energy prices. That is unequivocally a good thing. We just need to ensure as many people as possible have access to the necessary capital. Wind will be mostly useful for those applications with a large tolerance for variability and non criticality of supply, electrolysis, some chemical processes, desalination, some heating/cooling applications, water pumping etc.

[@factnotfiction5915]

@@naomieyles210 the world has shown it can build NPPs in about 5 years. This is not some insurmountable hurdle; it is a matter of planning, scheduling, and project management. Presenting a long time-to-operation as a inherent feature of nuclear is just factually incorrect. Hire the proper contracting firms, and you'll get it done properly. Hire EDF or Westinghouse - maybe you won't.

[@1969cmp]

Put nuclear power stations where coal power stations existed already exist and the infrastructure is already in place.

[@cbrhubs9245]

Yes, a no-brainer

[@simonc5592]

As long as theres water adjacent i dont have a problem with that

[@naomieyles210]

Yes, grid infrastructure is in place there, but what do you do for energy supply in the 10 years between coal shutdown and nuclear coming online? HVDC interconnections is a mature solution available now. Nuclear takes too long to be a viable solution. Tony Abbott should have started a nuclear program in 2013, but he didn't.

[@1969cmp]

@@naomieyles210 .....yes, Australia, as per usual is slow to do what needs to be done and too quick to adopt the stupid ideas....

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

We need 7 times more electricity to stop CO2 emissions the grid is not big enough.

[@yodaandthebike5839]

Fantastic panelists, fantastic presentation

[@aussietaipan8700]

Build a nuclear power station or 3, put a cafe and tours in the plant, public opposing mitigated. I can see nuclear as technology, industry, jobs and future for our kids as well as power security. Yes, the nuclear moratorium for nuclear power should be removed so we can start planning to get it right. We MUST start now. I drive a Tesla, I have a roof solar array and home battery but I'm also a nuclear advocate.

[@naomieyles210]

I'm a nuclear advocate, too, and nuclear would have been a good solution for Australia in 2013 under Tony Abbott. Nuclear is a bad solution in 2024 because we have a coal power fleet at end of life and need a nuclear fleet now, not in 10 years time. We cannot magic up a nuclear fleet in a few short years, but we can build out HVDC interconnectors in that time frame. I hear the new grid infrastructure is running late, but running late doesn't stop it from being a good option in our circumstances. Nuclear probably fits some niche use cases in Australia, but it doesn't solve replacing coal power in the required time frame.

[@keithbeaty3292]

At last, a rational discussion re nuclear power production for Australia. But, I think we’re missing the bigger picture here. Australia has over 40% of the world’s uranium reserves. Australia could become the one stop shop for the sale and thence the safe storage of uranium once used. That’s in addition to the ten or so nuclear reactors we need for power production. We should have started 30 years ago - lots of catch up to do.

[@damianmousley2098]

Open and frank discussions by people that know what they are talking about ……

[@cbrhubs9245]

Aye, it's refreshing.

[@stefancostanzo5396]

I really like the discussions coming out of the CIS, however I can’t seem to find a discussion similar to this, with a pro-renewables panel. Would you consider doing one if one has not already happened?

[@user-tg6fi9oi4x]

Think tanks are paid to promote their funder's agenda. There is no way they would subsdise a forum to promote a counter arguement. It means these foorums end up being rather dull, as there is rarely any disagreement between the panel members, and presentations are often low on visual data and statistics.

[@naomieyles210]

@@user-tg6fi9oi4x agree with you on think tanks. For an objective assessment, you want an engineer, not a think tank. HVDC interconnectors are the vital enabling technology which CIS is skirting around. Look up Australian channel Engineering with Rosie: * Four Reasons Why Nuclear Power is a Dumb Idea for Australia * Can You Run a Grid on 100% Wind + Solar? * Electricity Across Oceans: Is HVDC the Future? Also Real Engineering: * Is 100% Renewable Possible by 2050? - Interconnectors (the European super grid which is already in progress and already paying for itself too) * The Economics of Nuclear Energy (the comparison to gas in the first half of the video is very relevant). Also B1M: * Why Nuclear is Making a Comeback (nuclear is complicated and cost/time overruns are common)

[@PhotoVideoTechOz]

😂 you joking right. If they wanted discussion they wouldn’t sit around in a circle j, talking about how old mates solar panels aren’t making him money because his retailer has cut his feed in tariff. Or how the wind won’t blow this week, because the offshore wind looks pretty darn active most days this week. Yet he wants to bring a power source into the market that will centralise generation increasing cost because the base capacity will require locked in guaranteed revenue for some multinational investment company like Brookfields to take more dollars out of the country.

[@cerealport2726]

@@naomieyles210 As much as I like some of her content, it's hard to say that "engineering with rosie" is super trustworthy when it comes to power generation methods, as she works in the renewables sector. Just as you wouldn't trust someone who works in the fossil fuel sector if they tell you how terrible renewables are....

[@naomieyles210]

@@cerealport2726 Rosemary Barnes has 19 years in the industry and a relevant PhD. That makes her an authoritative source, which is more than I can say for myself. Real Engineering and B1M creators are also qualified in related fields, which is why I listed them, too. Rosemary Barnes (aka Engineering with Rosie) is supportive of nuclear power in general, just not for Australia given current circumstances. Refer her video entitled "Can Small Modular Reactors Save Nuclear Power?" dated 9th March 2022. The hydrogen conversation there is relevant to process heat for heavy industry, which is of interest to Australia. The load following design is relevant to Australia, too. NuScale is troubled, but SMR remains a potential future technology option for niche use cases here in Australia. The point is not to fangirl over one of my favourite KZbin channels, but rather to provide @stefancostanzo5396 with a variety of video content to expand their knowledge. If we were on a blogging platform, I'd refer them to research, reports and reference pages instead.

[@johnd87]

I cannot understand Labor's refusal to consider nuclear. It's an area that is revealing new scientific breakthroughs on a consistent basis. Labor is shutting its mind to any new discovery that may come along. Absolutely bizarre.

[@musicalneptunian]

Yeah. New breakthroughs that boast of "recycling the fuel rods" which is code for "we pile spent nuclear rods on top of each other and leave them in the actual reactor"; Fukushima showed an example of how volatile that can be.

[@a-b-c123]

That would mean re-energising the manufacturing sector building new power stations. Had you not noticed they've been dismantling Australian independence on energy for 20+ years? You cannot strangle a strong independent nation, you have to weaken it to the point of starvation.

[@frederickmiles327]

How many new nuclear power plants are under construction at present in the UK or USA ???. How many new nuclear power plants have actually been fully approved to start construction in the US'UK and actually proceeded into the physical construction phase in the last decade ??? It is certainly easier to build small nuclear power plants, but given a small nuclear sub or power plant would only produce say 37,500 hp which is equivalent to 5 last generation US main line steam engines of say the Mohawk, Niagra or Duplex type which could be built today into a revised geared oil or coal power station for half a billion dollars a minimal cost of about 1 percent of an equivalent 40,000 shp nuclear power plant and would provide basic electricity for only a small town of 40,00 people. There is no point in such small nuclear power plants. Current nuclear power stations are very much based on steam turbine technology of the late 1940s which is totally obsolete technology ( the QE2 cunnard liner and HMS Bristol in the late 1970s are good illustrations of the failure and impossibility of developing the relevant steam tech furthur) and as Rickover said it is the steam turbine part of the equation which is the difficult and dangerous part of the US nuclear plants and just like an old JA NZR last generation rail engine the steam part of a nuclear power station can certainly blow apart due to blowback which when combined with a pressurised water reactor will casuse hari kari in the nuclar system as well. There is no doubt that early nuclear submarines say the USN Skipjack or Soviet November were very fast with top speeds of around 35 knots and they were twice as fast as available anti submarine torpedoes, effective wire guided a's torpedoes capable of use against submarines at ranges of 2-6 miles( before the introduction of the USN Mk 48 in the 1970s) and only available to the UK post cold war. In the case of the Mk 37 or RN Tigerfish no more than 24-26 knots. It is still tremendously difficult for a torpedo to be guided by a sub towards another sub and catch up with a sub moving away from the attacking and tracking torpedo launching sub The problem with small nuclear subs and nuclear power stations are they are dangerous and can be done by many nations while large nuclear power stations or nuclear subs like a LA class or a Akula are very difficult to replicate today as we have far fewer brilliant physicists and mathermaticians and in the nuclear field the relevant chemicals and agents can never🎉🎉 be entirely replicated as even the first nuclear and hydrogen tests changed the chemistry and biosphere of the world quite substantially

[@resurrectingexcellence]

It's ideological

[@naomieyles210]

​@@resurrectingexcellence it's economic. * nuclear is more expensive. * nuclear build out takes 15 years. * we need energy solutions now, not in 15 years. * HVDC interconnections are a mature technology that provides solutions now. Tony Abbott in 2013 was the last decent economic opportunity for Gen 3 nuclear in Australia, and he dropped the ball. We won't have another economic opportunity like that until Gen 4, SMR, or Inertial Fusion reactors are proven out, probably in the 2040s.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Aidan Morrison argument that if "free" renewable electricity was true then the grid costs added into the customers electricity bills would still be substantial. He is right. Grid costs are a huge majority part of the costs. Grid maintenance costs add to total grid costs. 24/7 servicing capacity. Other nuclear promoters have said $1million per km new grid construction costs. Government publications refer to 1million km of grid total length to 20million buildings. $TRILLIONS construction costs in a 1TRILLION GDP economy. I am an old Construction Civil Engineer contractor who has worked on coal fired and gas turbine generation electric plant new construction. $$$$$$$$ I have worked on new transmission lines construction 1,700 tower transmission line. $$$$$$$$ I have worked in busy street construction with their access restrictions and daily time frames. $$$$$$$$$ I have grandchildren and their future is more important than the chaotic thinking about the wrong problem that comes from ignorant understanding. Experts laugh at the non experts speaking about the experts area of knowledge. Sadly experts outside their own expertise remain embarrassingly confident. Confident and foolish. Solve the right problem.

[@KF-bj3ce]

A real problem with Labor, holding back Australia's prosperity with its dogmatic refusal to adopt nuclear base load power generation. Hence never support Labor to be elected again.

[@naomieyles210]

That was true of Labor in 2012, but Tony Abbott had the perfect opportunity to start nuclear in 2013, and he dropped the ball. Nuclear in 2024 is too little, too late, because it takes 15 years to build out and we need solutions now. HVDC interconnections provides energy solutions now -- nuclear doesn't.

[@KF-bj3ce]

To@@naomieyles210 Thanks for your interest. True Liberal governments have the same trend to not want to manage properly in the interest of the people and rater concentrate to be elected again. Although we have a democracy once the politicians are elected we have very limited control over them, they can even switch sides or go independent without asking the people. That is why Australia should become a better democracy and install citizens initiated referendum. However it is never to late to make changes for the better it is just the cost goes up the longer we wait. And as is said by Helen Cook we need to think long term.

[@naomieyles210]

@@KF-bj3ce totally agree re. CIR. On the subject of nuclear, that ship has already sailed for Austraiia. We urgently need to replace our coal power fleet inside the next 10 years, and the build out time frame for a single nuclear reactor is 6 to 10 years, with high risk of cost and time overruns. We don't have the regulatory frameworks and we don't have the skilled personnel, so that pushes the project delivery date out further and makes the massive scale required that much more difficult to achieve. The other solution is HVDC, where each interconnector pays for itself in a short time frame, and each interconnector increases the percentage of cheap variable renewables we can incorporate in the grid. HVDC is already paying for itself in Europe, and is on the way to building out the European super grid. HVDC fits our time frame, needs, and existing skills. It's too late for nuclear to provide what we need here in Australia. I do think nuclear has great potential for niche use cases in Australia, it just doesn't fit the overall coal replacement use case.

[@naomieyles210]

​@@KF-bj3ce I get the impression that the LNP is more interested in nuclear while in opposition, and less interested when in government. Given a 6-10 year construction time, plus a lead time of several years for regulatory frameworks and other preparation, a nuclear reactor doesn't fit neatly into a term of office. We'd need an entire fleet of nuclear reactors to solve our issues with our coal power fleet coming to end of life, and we need them this decade. Due to the time frame mismatch, we are forced to pursue the HVDC route, so it's fortunate that HVDC is a proven technology and a good match for our needs.

[@KF-bj3ce]

To@@naomieyles210 That may be so, but is the Australian constitution so weak that this can not be legislated for completion and do we forever have to put up with this nonsense.

[@SuperBlinding]

Sanity = = Thank You.

[@johnnyb1368]

Anyone bothered to look at world copper reserves, we are at deficit on copper supply and will require 700% to 1000% increase in copper extraction to meet demand, yet there is very little investment in future copper mining. Without copper your just blowing hot air out of your behind.

[@terenceharvey6432kong]

lets build some new copper mines Australia

[@stevennowakowski9058]

Great forum. Thank you.

[@jarydf]

AUKUS has us spending significant money on nuke subs. If we had a nuke industry that could support small reactor technology for sub and land based use, that sounds like a strategy that could win broad support.

[@ishizu92]

where is the conversation around smart grids ?

[@jimgreen242]

Every Australian will have a nuclear scan? Confirmation that Patterson is a liar. Waste is sorted out? Confirmation that Patterson is a liar.

[@KF-bj3ce]

Thanks for this excellent information video. Here is Labor burning gas in power plants which in turn could be used as a transport fuel in vehicles in the interim to better battery fuel systems. Solar rooftop systems are great as it generates power where it is being used with some minor upgrades on power transformers but without the need to upgrade Australia's power distribution network to the extent planed by Labor. I have lived in South Australia and seen the blackouts. The big battery in SA buys power at times of low cost then resells it to the citizens at time of need at high costs. Hence one could call the big battery a success but is it really or is it just a smoke screen? What about the damage caused by all these wind turbine structures and the cost of reinstating the land? Labor's plan is seriously flawed and will cause problems in the future if allowed to proceed.

[@jimgreen242]

60-80-100 year lifespan for reactors, Helen? Average lifespan of reactors closed over the past 5 years is 43 years.

[@jimgreen242]

So does Adi Patterson take ANY responsibility for the disgraceful safety record at ANSTO while he was CEO?

[@theycallmebruce69]

I've been investing in uranium since 2020 , I have watched a lot of interviews regarding this energy. For those who haven't herd of Rick Rule his knowledge is second to none and has stated a couple of times now that the world has spent trillions on renewable energy for less than a 2 percent gain , this is what I would call insanity. Because this is such a critical decision moving forward for Australia should we be voting for a separate body of experienced people to over look our mission to achieve the desired outcome . As all I can see by around 2035 the politicians will realise they have stuffed up and then they will play the usual blame game and none of them will have any accountability for there actions. Great talk and I hope a lot of people watch this.

[@matty_mccarthy]

How’s the stock going?

[@MrTubeuser12]

I'm all in with nuclear, part of the reasoning I disagree with, low carbon footprint. forget about carbon, it's a good thing, politicians need to pull their heads out of their @$$ and just get it done for cheap energy. solar and wind is economically and logistically expensive right through is life. not to mention intermittent. also interesting point, I'm in New Zealand and we just had a warning about saving energy because of the risk of blackouts, one reason given by our biggest provider is that the wind farms it partly relies on produced less than expected levels, so there you go !

[@musicalneptunian]

If I hear this "net zero" crap one more time I will pull my hair out. "Net Zero" is a brain fart thought up by some advertising and PR dept.

[@a-b-c123]

@@musicalneptunian when they say "net zero" they don't mean themselves, they mean us.

[@user-fj5ob8ih8z]

More people have died from airplane issues & accidents than nuclear failures. Nuclear is no bigger risk to people than normal life issues. Coal mining is a big risk to life & itst not banned. So do we keep this ban in place?

[@jamesd.r.philips1676]

The grid won't work without generation in addition to wind and solar. We need the grid to work. AI and data are materially increasing the electricity demand. The dispatchable generation can either be gas or nuclear. Nuclear is CO2 free.

[@darleenlee9125]

What happens with solar panels and wind turbines after they no longer work? What is the carbon footprint of making them? What is the carbon footprint of transporting them? What is the carbon footprint of installation and ground clearance? What is the cost of upkeep on all components of wind and solar?

[@davidwilkie9551]

Actual Intelligence manifestation. Unmodified on topic Journalism by Observation. Australia of the ANZAC legend in Defence by practical pragmatism.

[@scottfoster9452]

It's so great to have this discussion I am fed up with the woke demonisation of nuclear power generation. We need to develop a base load nuclear power generation industry here in Australia.

[@ayr4455]

Today the CSIRO called bullshit on the Nuclear option re: price. Twice as expensive apparently. Are they lying?

[@cbiggar100]

But what really matters is that CIS' opinion is that Nuclear is the cheapest and easiest to build. Facts contrary to this opinion are countered by saying the offending report is compromised. CSIRO's, in this case. Supporting evidence not needed.

[@DingoCC]

Noticed Hinkley Point C was not mentioned. Interesting.

[@jimgreen242]

Great debate? Well it might have been a great debate if you included a neutral or critical speaker. No chance of that from the CIS of from Chris's new employer Sky.

[@DavidShort-lf4jn]

Should have gone for 2 hours is my only complaint - great work.

[@peterdreyer5954]

What an excellent discussion. Its a pity that our politicians are so intellectually inferior. This would go straight into over Chris Bowen’s head.

[@jollygoode4153]

Evidence free discussion this. They start with the claim that a grid based primarily on wind and solar wont work, ignoring that South Australia already has a grid that already works on that basis. Also the claim that frequency is ruined ignores the impacts of the big batteries like Hornsdale that demonstrate every day that the grid can stay up without coal and gas. Anyway there is a big push on by the rent seekers here but it aint gonna fly, it's too late and costs too much.

[@factnotfiction5915]

The SA grid works because it is connected to other grids that prop it up when it doesn't.

[@gordonflash8976]

Is it not possible to have some of the hardware ready to go for a neuclear power plant in expectation for this future you are looking at?

[@Dogga10001]

Why aren’t Australians informed of the truth about nuclear?

[@Dogga10001]

As far as I know the latest nuclear technology far outweighs any existing technologies, why are our governments not looking at these technologies, or are they more interested in banning vapes, we vote these bunnies in and should have more say on what policies they come up with.

[@awc900]

Australia burying it's head in the sand and ignoring nuclear options including upcoming SMR, MMR and most recent, nano reactor technology is quite ludicrous. Larry Fink the chairman of Blackrock recently told the WEF that investing in renewables is a bad option. This is in part due to data centres and upcoming AI technology require stable and reliable power sources. This is something renewables cannot now or likely ever be able to provide. Going forward, nuclear has to form an integral part of the Australian grid.

[@jimgreen242]

Why is it that the Australian Chief Scientist opposes nuclear power, as do at least 2 former Australian Chief Scientists, and the NSW Chief Scientist?

[@cerealport2726]

The current chief scientist is a physicist. previous chief scientists have been (in order): ecologist biologist immunologist chemical engineer molecular biologist astronomer neuroscientist neuroscientist The discussion about (the cost and timing of) nuclear power implementation is really related to engineering, not so much about science, and they are not the same thing, despite being intertwined.

[@peterrichards1058]

Who pays them and what legislation is currently in place Answer it has nothing to do with science it’s politics and the Australian government of the pays the chief scientists wage. Legislative bans on nuclear stops any real discussion or debate on the so called green energy agenda. In a nut shell the Chief scientists will do as they are told by the government of the day.

[@jimgreen242]

Yes let's doi a holistic economic analysis, Aidan. How does nuclear economics work if the industry has to pay insurance costs?

[@johnnywarbo]

Maybe (not maybe) should debate this with Andrew Forrest as he thinks the sun shines and wind blows from anything (subsidies of course).

[@Forexfox99]

And let’s not forget-this is not the last level of power creation. New tech will appear in the future. Nuclear is a transitional power source.

[@bradleydavies4781]

Australia will have Nuclear powered submarines in the next decade so what’s the difference ?

[@andwil1959]

Here are at least some of the lies and casuistry of Adrian Paterson: 1. Every Australian will have at least one nuclear medicine procedure during their life and we think now with the new therapeutic ones probably two..so we live in a nuclear world where radiation is taken to hospitals every day 2. [nuclear] waste is sorted out, we have the world's first synroc plant ready to go 3. the frequency [of the electricity grid] is already completely destroyed.. and we are losing businesses 4. when the lights start to go out in the offices of people in politics they will get an urgent need to get this done 5. Fukushima was not a nuclear accident. All of the calculations show that nobody will die from Fukushima apart from a couple of really brave people 6. 56 people .. died from Chernobyl 7. we are replacing a reliable system with buying everyone in Australia a bicycle, that's what intermittent renewables are 8. we have got a captured cult defining our energy future because there is no plausible basis for [renewables] 9. when anyone says that the climate is changing you say which 60 years are you talking about 10. [as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to increase] the deserts of Australia will gradually become light green 11. drop the word environmental because it does not mean anything.. nuclear is the best for the ecology of our country, renewables are destroying the ecology of our country

[@tonyheron3228]

Finally someone is making sense

[@jimgreen242]

Memo to Chris: the Coalition's lie that you are meant to repeat is that we need 28,000 kms of transmission.

[@cerealport2726]

why is it a lie...? Please, enlighten us - how many kilometres do we need, and how have you estimated it, or validated an estimation by someone else?

[@jimgreen242]

@@cerealport2726 Dutton also repeated his claim that the government is planning 28,000 kms of new transmission lines across the country by 2030, which he said “is equal to the coastline of the whole of Australia.” Again, not true. The Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan models just 5,000 kms by 2030 and 10,000kms by 2050 in its core “step change” scenario. The 28,000 kms reference applies only to one scenario, the green energy export one, and is an estimate for 2050, not 2030. And, if Australia is to become a green energy exporter at the scale that that scenario suggests, it would likely need more power lines whatever the source of that power. That 28,000kms claim was repeated on multiple occasions by Littleproud in his Sky News interview, along with his claim that wind turbines “only last 15-20 years (actually closer to 30). He said the Coalition policy is about transitioning from coal to nuclear, with gas and “some” renewables. reneweconomy.com.au/dutton-kicks-his-own-nuclear-policy-can-down-the-road-amid-reports-of-split-in-coalition/

[@johngibson5314]

Australia - the "can't do" country!

[@jimgreen242]

Yes, let's assess our options, Helen. Westinghouse AP1000s? Bzzz, they went bankrupt. French EPRs? Bzzz, they have given up on them. APR1400s from the corrupt South Korean nuclear industry., bzzz. NuScale SMRs, bzzz, non-existent and the company is going bankrupt.

[@cbiggar100]

A new nuclear power station cannot be in operation earlier than 20 years from right now. We all know this to be true, but sure write a few words about some country doing it faster, but from scratch and include all preliminary phases, not just from when build got the official go ahead.

[@prizecowproductions]

I wondering what a USA aircraft Carrier would power suburbs or City wise. Also Curious how big it would be as 95 % percent of the population lives on the coast. The rest of us could survive on the coal power stations we still have as wind and solar won't work. Jeff Moore

[@factnotfiction5915]

nuclear USA aircraft Carrier (or submarine) - not very much. The ship's reactors are good enough to propel the ship, and a little bit to provide other electricity - so maybe 50-100 MW. (submarine about 30-50 MW). A city is more in the 500 MW-5000 MW range. I don't have the numbers for an Australian city, but for example Chicago (3.5 million people over 100 sq miles) is about 5000 MW during the day and 3000 MW during the night.

[@johnnywarbo]

If there is such a glut of energy during the day (renewables, negative spot price) why can't our energy providers allow "off peak" rates (hot water and other) during this time or is that not about the climate agenda.

[@cbiggar100]

OVO is offering free EV charging during this time. Amber offers best rates at this time.

[@engineer4yrs]

Go CANDU

[@hanrol1]

what a brilliant trio of experts

[@1969cmp]

I think many more died at Chernobyl than 56 people. That aside the failure of Chernobyl was human in design and management. Chernobyl was not built according to international regulations and the station management were foolish in their testing.

[@naomieyles210]

Chernobyl was a bad design for a *Gen 2* nuclear reactor. Fukushima was a *Gen 2* nuclear reactor, too. If Australia starts building a nuclear reactor this decade, it would be a *Gen 3* nuclear reactor, with built in passive safety features, no meltdown possible. Different kettle of fish to either Chernobyl or Fukushima. Even though I'm a nuclear advocate, nuclear is the wrong path for Australia because it doesn't fit our time frame and it doesn't fit our duck curve energy supply needs. Nuclear is a perfect fit for Germany, so it was incredibly sad to watch them shut down perfectly good nuclear reactors for political reasons.

[@andwil1959]

World Health Organization (WHO) estimates of a total 4,000 deaths due to disaster-related illnesses in "the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations" [Wikipedia]. No-one knows the long term effects. Leukemia can take 10 years to appear. Nuclear enthusiasts always play down the risks. The people on this panel won't be the ones exposed to any risks. Adrian Paterson said that global warming due to increased carbon dioxide is good for plants therefore Australia's deserts will become 'light green'. He implied that the Sahara will do the same.

[@1969cmp]

@@andwil1959 ...hmm, yes. The nuclear guys play down the risk of nuclear and the renewables/battery storage folk ignore the environmental and human cost in rare earth minerals mining in Africa etc.

[@naomieyles210]

@@andwil1959 the human cost of coal mining and coal power stations is many orders of magnitude worse than the 4,000 estimated deaths from Chernobyl's consequences. Chernobyl was unforgivable, but it's also not repeatable given that particular Gen 2 reactor design is no longer in use. Fukushima was a much smaller accident, despite a deficient maintenance record, and despite also being a Gen 2 reactor, because it is a superior Gen 2 design to Chernobyl. A modern Gen 3 reactor does not have Fukushima's vulnerabilities. Is Adrian Peterson an expert on hydrological cycles? Can he explain why the Sahara is expanding despite CO2 increasing by 25% in the last 27 years through to April 2024? The simplistic idea that a planet sized greenhouse is somehow a good thing, and will green all our deserts, depends on our *planet sized greenhouse* being equipped with *planet wide drip feeding.* That's a curious proposition, but I'd be interested to hear how he plans to install that kind of irrigation and what freshwater source he plans to use.

[@andwil1959]

@@1969cmp I don't deny that all mining has risks. But mining for lithium does not have the radioactive risks associated with mining for uranium.

[@jimgreen242]

Tom Switzer: "All the available evidence shows that Gen Z and millennial Australians strongly support nuclear energy." Ignorant or just another liar.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Aidan Morrison said grid electricity is expensive because the grid is expensive. Other promoters refer to the extreme grid costs and so put nuclear heaters into the existing generators. At existing grid centres. 7 times more electricity grid capacity. 28,000 km new grid from LNPs leader Dutton. Illinois Energy Professor video talks about nuclear vs gas generation. Worth the view. Remember 15% of all energy used is electric energy. So, 7 times today's electricity generation means 7 times more grid capacity. Australian grid new construction costs $1million per km. Big transmission lines. Big km in busy streets of poles and wires and transformers and switch yards and building connections. Millions and millions and millions and millions of customers. Australia has 1million km. $1TRILLION capital in the existing national electric grid. Plus new nuclear generation plants $TRILLIONS?????? Electric grid built over 100years. More grid capacity, 7 times more, is 700 years ???????????????😮 In the beginning grid electricity was the only electricity. EXPENSIVE and built by the governments. A luxury priced necessity, lights were turned off when leaving a room. Grid rental has ALWAYS been expensive, ask Aidan Morrison. New grid is expensive infrastructure investment. Snowy 2.0 budget explosion with new grid costs. 😮😮😮😮😮 2 to 15 $billions, bang, too many bucks.

[@chopinmack5418]

Over 60% of the land in Australia are Desert . Australia should try to sell more coal to China , and buy the Solar Panels from them in return . Install the Solar Panels in Desert areas only and generate a lot of cheap solar energy so as to enable Australia to become competitive in other industries . Cost of Solar Panels is dropping 10% / year and it is not wise to make cheap Solar Panels locally .

[@Mattb81]

Japan & South Korea are our main coal customers. China has little need for our coal. They have plenty of their own.

[@southern-samurai]

The question is, what will we achieve for the environment by phasing out our cheap coal and gas?

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

How come everyone is an expert outside their expertise. Electricity supply is 3 parts. The generation. 25gW The Customers, millions and millions and millions and millions 20million. The grid in-between both. 1million km. The grid part is always an outside Construction contractor. Outside expertise. Clients often do not want their dreams priced, Hahaha Hahaha. What is the price and when can you complete. Extremely expensive grid construction costs means MINIMUM capacity for the demand and fragile build. Does anyone understand Australia's electricity supply problem, electric grid capacity problem ?????? 😮😮😮😮

[@davidhemsted5372]

I think you mean BWXT not Electric Boat

[@mauricefinn1320]

There's actually no need to do anything. There is no climate emergency.

[@chrisc62]

Australia has a remarkable startup hb11 energy with a way to create low radiation and cheap energy using inetial nuclear fuson using lasers. I Ihink Australa shoould invest in that technolgy and use wind and solar with battery backup until it is ready.

[@tonybooth4]

Rosie counters this nonsense

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Australian GDP 1.5 TRILLION National grid is 1 TRILLION 7 TRILLION for more grid capacity Plus nuclear generators 1 TRILLION Plus 20million EVs, parked 23hrs every day, BAD UTILIZATION. Utilization of nuclear for value is 24hrs constant operation. Plus Expensive 24/7/365 shift operators, plus reserve operators. GRID ELECTRICITY IS A DEAD DUCK ECONOMICALLY. 😢😢

[@jimgreen242]

A 2020 report by NSW Chief Scientist Hugh Durrant-Whyte, prepared for the NSW Cabinet, said introducing nuclear power would be expensive and difficult and that it would be naïve to think a nuclear plant could be built in less than two decades .A former Chief Scientific Adviser at the UK Ministry of Defence, Dr. Durrant-Whyte said: "The hard reality is Australia has no skills or experience in nuclear power plant building, operation or maintenance - let alone in managing the fuel cycle. Realistically, Australia will be starting from scratch in developing skills in the whole nuclear power supply chain.”

[@peterforsythe3643]

You obviously didn’t listen to the discussion. All this was covered.

[@chuckbirdnz]

The sooner Oz goes nuclear the sooner NZ can. I wonder what the panel thinks of thorium SMRs as are being researched and hopeful built in Denmark.

[@crouchingwombathiddenquoll5641]

Wonderful to know we have an endless supply of uranium to draw from.😂

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

let me speak slowly. Nuclear electricity is grid electricity. The new grid is 10 times more expensive than putting nuclear heaters into the existing national grid. Grid electricity is a little tiny bit of all energy used. More grid electricity is also more grid capacity. National grid construction cost is the same as the national GDP. So, 7 times more electricity and 7 times the national GDP for more grid construction. 7 times more grid generation is the dirt cheap part. Just like the train is the dirt cheap part of a national railway. Nuclear also says EV demand adds to grid demand. Utilization demand for nuclear is in conflict with EVs' big battery Utilization demand. In Australia, 25gW grid generation vs. 20 million vehicles with big batteries future 2,000gWh daily storage You just need to know where the nation needs to go economically. Nuclear is an economic dead end.

[@user-ye9qe8oq8x]

Australia behind the times again. We need Nuclear power, how high are the bills going to get before enough is enough.... hell we are already there. I have always voted Labor and wish I never did. Seems voting labor is now no different then voting greens.

[@cobberpete1]

Legislation is in place around the world, so it is not a problem to 'Cut and paste'. Australia does not have to start with a clean page. Power stations are again all over the world, so why do we need to start with a brand new design. Part of the time problem is bureaucratic road blocks. Up front costs are high, but energy production is then very low. The comment was made. look at the whole picture and costs over a set time period. then compare with fossil fuel costs. Come and build a plant in my back yard.

[@factnotfiction5915]

Australia could probably even out-source the regulator while training staff to come up to speed using some sort of deal with whoever - US NRC, CA CNSC, UK ONR, Korea's NSSC, etc).

[@peterrichards1058]

Labor and Greens are pushed by foreign Green power companies that have our grid held to ransom. Those Australian and foreign owned companies invested in wind and solar are also heavily invested in Chinese manufacturing follow the money it has nothing to do with the climate con. This eggs all in one basket approach is dangerous for us as nation and this Green religion based politics is dangerous. We need a grid with more than Solar /wind generation purely because of land mass as it’s just not feasible to rely on wind and solar alone. Gas /coal and Nuclear mix is a far better more reliable and realistic option. Australians need to bring back our own public owned power grid and investment in a people bank for infrastructure like the commonwealth used to be before it was sold off by Labor’s Keating. This publicly owned bank could invest in a nation wide power grid that would certainly benefit from a nuclear industry.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Stopping CO2 emissions worldwide with nuclear electricity is impossible. Grid electricity is a small 15% of all energy used in Australia and the world. 7 times more grid electricity is economically impossible. My feed-in 5cents per kWh is the dirt cheap price of grid electricity. My invoiced 55cents per wWh includes the GRID RENTAL COSTS. Infrastructure maintenance and investment needs a return $. Even the LNP leader Dutton said 28,000 new grid is insane. Grids new construction is stupendously expensive. $1million per km. $28billion Australia has 1million km and 20million buildings. The national grid has taken 100years to build and new grid capacity will take decades. Can any one do simple maths.? 😮😮😮 Both LNP and ALP are grid happy idiots. Both LNP and ALP and nuclear and renewables promoters are stupidly grid electricity happy. All refer to EVs, electric vehicles. Utilization factor of investment is the only factor of $TRILLIONS in investment. Listen to the Illinois Energy Professor video. For starters. Grow up get some simple facts. Listen to the Australian nuclear promoters talk about grid costs on their videos.

[@simonc5592]

I like Nuclear power as a concept But it is expensive lets not kid ourselves. I can understand the early years and its scepticsm in the 80s due to chernobyl. In fact Italy had a referendum to decomission 6 of its active reactors at the time. I understand newer technologies make power plants safer but how the hell do you explain the Fukushima Disaster in 2011. Japan is the most technologically advanced country in the world and still they couldnt guarantee in the relatively modern era a safe power plant.

[@naomieyles210]

Fukushima was a *Gen 2* nuclear power station. If Australia starts building a nuclear plant this decade, it will be *Gen 3* with passive safety features, no meltdown possible. Our big problem with nuclear in Australia is time frame. We need to replace our coal power fleet now, and trying to build out a nuclear power fleet will take too long. On the other hand, expanding our grid with HVDC interconnectors can be done in a few short years, and across SA, Vic and NSW, the wind is always blowing somewhere. Adding Tas and Qld to the supergrid expands the net for harvesting wind across the continent. Expanding HVDC out to WA will be costly, but opens up a 2 hour time difference on solar and energy usage patterns. HVDC across the ditch to New Zealand expands the supergrid to a 4 hour time zone spread of solar and energy usage. Lots of economically responsible options to grow toward 100% clean energy in time, with HVDC being the key enabling technology.

[@willynebula6193]

Basically the plant had a 20 meter high break wall for WHEN a tsunami hit. (Not if) The thinking was that anything higher was basically impossible, however they got one. Reactors need cooling even when shutting down because of residual heat so water is pumped to cool them. The backup diesel generators that run the pumps where in the basement. Everything would have been fine if they placed them on the roof.

[@stanyeaman4824]

I shall let you into a secret. The British bomb testing the sixties and early seventies saved Australia. Do you remember Soekarnoe’s Konfrontasi in 1965 when Borneo and Malaya, before Malaysia. Australia was to be next. Do you remember the squadron of RAF Vulcan V bombers which visited Darwin on a “Goodwill Mission”. A nuclear bomb was then flown to Darwin. Soekarno was then quietly warned that if one Indonesian trooper’s foot landed on Australia that bomb would land on him. The bomb had been developed at Marilinga by AWARE, the Atomic Weapons Australia Research Establishment in Adelaide. It was a joint UK-Australia mutual organisation. It stopped an attempted invasion of Australia. This really happened, and I am not James Bond. Be grateful, Aussies, for the Brit bomb and the RAF which saved you from hostile invasion. Oz Brit

[@naomieyles210]

Nuclear is perfect for Germany to support their heavy industry through their Dunkelflaute. Australia doesn't have Dunkelflaute. We have a duck curve in our electricity supply and demand curves and nuclear *does not help* with a duck curve. Australia has an urgent need for energy supply that nuclear cannot help us with, because nuclear is way too slow to build out, even if we had regulatory frameworks and skills base for it, which we don't. We don't have 15 years to replace coal, because coal is no longer economically viable. 15 years ago would have been a perfect time to build out nuclear in Australia. Starting nuclear here in 2024 is too little, too late. The tiny little Lucas Heights nuclear medicine research reactor is completely irrelevant. There is *always* reliable wind somewhere in Australia. HVDC interconnections are an obvious mature technology solution that is available now, and solves our energy problems progressively whereas nuclear delivers more expensive energy 15 years too late.

[@cerealport2726]

You're clearly not an engineer, or a scientist, and have zero understanding of power generation and distribution systems. I'd call you a liar, but you understand what you're talking about, so it's obviously just ignorance... The WA grid is effectively not connected to the eastern states because it's just not practical to do so. Yes, Australian wind farms do have days where they have not enough, or too much wind to operate. That's a dunkelflaute each and every time. Lucas Heights is not completely irrelevant. It's a nuclear reactor... the regulatory authorities, and regulations are in place, as are all the procedures. You evidently do not know how hard it is to create all this, and how advantageous it is that we do have it.

[@naomieyles210]

@@cerealport2726 agreed, there is no supergrid to WA or NT this decade. I expect that to change in 2030s or 2040s as there is more pressure to squeeze out CO2, and assuming there is no breakthrough that completely alters the economics of nuclear. Europe is already heavily invested in HVDC, which is paying for itself, and they are well on their way to a highly effective supergrid. Having said that, Australia is not Europe. Dunkelflaute is low sun + low wind. It's a big issue for Germany, lasting weeks at a time, and is one reason Germany should be building out nuclear, not shutting them down. Dunkelflaute for 2 weeks affecting both sun + wind across all of NSW, Vic, and SA sounds extraordinarily improbable. In Germany, happens every year, if Sabine Hossenfelder is German enough to know. The point of HVDC is to create an efficient supergrid to make 3, 4 or 5+ states into a single net for collecting wind and sun and sharing storage. Yes, it's more complicated than that and imperfect and requires gas backup. Awkward solution, but a good fit for our needs. Nuclear is an elegant solution, but a bad fit for our needs. I am a data analyst professionally, working in engineering and infrastructure subject areas. I just happen to be an advocate for nuclear personally, not professionally. I don't like lies, and I'm seeing disingenuous misrepresentation of nuclear coming from left-wing and right-wing political sources. We should keep our politicians out of STEM decision making -- they are not qualified. Very easy for commentators and politicians to misrepresent Lucas Heights. My knowledge is not zero. I know more than most politicians and commentators on the subject, but would not presume to have sufficient knowledge to make use of decision making powers and billion dollar budgets. i.e. Don't let me into an electricity substation with my multimeter. :D

[@factnotfiction5915]

@@naomieyles210 true, nuclear does not help with the duck curve - neither do wind or solar, and solar CREATES the duck curve.

[@naomieyles210]

@@factnotfiction5915 yep, solar creates the duck curve, so the cheapness of solar PV becomes a false economy fairly early in the energy transition, when considered across the entire grid. Time zone shift of solar PV offers some interesting possibilities, with four hours from WA to SA to NSW to NZ, but grid interconnectors to NZ and WA will be expensive. We'll be seeing the long awaited expansion of the Tasmania "battery of the nation" interconnection before we see WA and NZ interconnectors. Wind is useful for reducing the duck curve, and fits our time frames at this point of the energy transition. Nuclear doesn't fit our time frames now, but is likely to prove invaluable to reducing our dependence on storage when we eliminate natural gas from the grid. Extraordinary 24/7 offshore wind resources across the southern shores of Australia is one big reason nuclear is not a 2024 solution here. Nuclear should be on the table, just not in 2024. I hope that ANTSO is quietly preparing for a nuclear power industry in Australia right now, and I'd guess they probably are. There are multiple problems we are solving, which is why nuclear is not a silver bullet. Nuclear is a larger or smaller piece of a modern energy grid depending upon a complex set of local circumstances.

[@jimgreen242]

Adi: renewables "are destroying the ecology of our country" Further proof he is a nutjob.

[@andwil1959]

Yes. And he said carbon dioxide is good for plants therefore Australia's deserts will become 'light green'. In complete ignorance or denial (or perversion) of the most recent IPCC report (generally accepted to be conservative).

[@borkerfieldfilms7053]

Wait til they discover nuclear + bitcoin mining

[@ciarondunn6655]

From a reasoned perspective, nuclear energy represents a perilous venture masking as a beneficial innovation, entrapping societies in a cycle of dependency on costly and hazardous technology. Nuclear power was initially developed as an instrument of destruction and can not be seamlessly transformed into a force for societal good without profound implications. Its high costs and the significant dangers it poses to both the physical health of the populace and their psychological stability highlight the inherent contradictions in promoting nuclear energy as a sustainable solution. Over the past decades, despite optimistic projections, the promise of reduced costs and efficiency in nuclear power generation has been empirically debunked. Notably, unlike most technologies that become cheaper with advances and widespread adoption, the cost of nuclear power has paradoxically escalated, undermining economic rationales for its adoption. This reasoned critique further observes that the continued reliance on nuclear energy perpetuates capitalist modes of production that prioritise profit over environmental sustainability and public health. This technology's capital-intensive nature serves to concentrate wealth and power rather than democratising access to safe and clean energy. A genuinely transformative approach is needed to address the energy crisis and environmental degradation, which necessitates a departure from fossil fuels and a rejection of nuclear power in favour of renewable energy sources. These alternatives promise to harmonise energy production with the ecological and social needs intrinsic to fostering a sustainable and equitable future. Thus, from a reasonable viewpoint, the advocacy for nuclear energy fails to recognise its role in perpetuating economic disparities and environmental harm, contradicting the imperatives for systemic change towards a society organised around the principles of equity, sustainability, and collective well-being.

[@evil17]

You are way off the mark with all that my friend, Australia has enough nuclear fuel for thousands of years. Solar, wind & hydro all have issue with environmental disasters, clearing protected areas, damming large areas, 10-30 years of unreliable power without any base load & requires large area’s and investments while storm damage reeks havoc & no recycle program for the many toxic & valuable constituents of those pv panels & windmill blades that kill bird wildlife & protected areas. Green energy is a nice idea but it’s expensive, short lived, maintenance intensive adding to costs, has low power density, requires a lot of extra maintenance grid structure, has a high carbon input/output to produce & is full of toxic chemicals & processes. Coal, gas, oil, deisel, nuclear, geothermal, I dont care, the climate lie has been exposed & CO2 doesn’t hurt us or our climate, but nuclear would be the safe, clean, sensible, cheap over 50-100 years or more when fusion may be available, but in the mean time we need a good stable, steady energy source to power the future of Australia and make us great again, create industry, jobs & the power we need if we are going to keep flooding this great land with immigrants & industry. Let’s face it, Australia is addicted to deisel & nothing will make that change for a very long time. the EV utopia is a fantasy gone wrong for Aussies & wont happen as the powers are trying to make it happen. China built a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor in 5 years at a cost of 8.5 billion that has been running for over a year and another to come online in another years or so, cant meltdown with the new generation built in passive safety mechanisms, it is also possible for thorium reactors to recycle old nuclear waste for energy & turn it into a much safer and short lived byproduct for safer storage. If it took us 10-20 years to have nuclear power it would be a great investment for our future. Much of your argument was based on old scare stories, misinformation, a lack of information & or knowledge or the woke, wef, green ideologies, but is not a sustainable argument or energy source with proof of the shortcomings of green energy issues glaring at you.

[@info88w11]

lunatic

[@gravitaslost]

Lol.

[@polarbear7255]

Wow… could you be more Wrong? Nuclear is the future and it always has been.

[@info88w11]

Boo you coward

[@user-dj3yv6je9n]

Get labour out and get conservatives in and start Australias future, the labour government are usless, your CHineese neighbours are winning in every department time for Australia to rival

[@naomieyles210]

How many nuclear reactors did the LNP build? 2013 under Tony Abbott was the perfect opportunity to start building out nuclear, but it's easier to talk about it than do it.

[@jimgreen242]

Helen likes bicycles!

[@tonybooth4]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fpCXaH-Ne6Z6bMk

[@alancotterell9207]

Many radioactive isotopes have half-lives of thousands of years. What does 'safe for 50 years ' mean ? - We cannot put it into the clay-bottomed hole at Tullamarine.

[@jimgreen242]

We're losing businesses, Adi? Liar.

[@naomieyles210]

We are losing heavy industry businesses, but that's due to mismanagement of our domestic gas supply, not due to having no nuclear. Supply of sufficient heat for heavy industry is an unsolved problem for renewables, so we should be saving all the gas we can for that purpose. In theory, you could use nuclear to solve the problem of heat for heavy industry, but you'd have to site your heavy industry up close to the nuclear reactor, which is a difficult proposition, so green hydrogen is a more likely bet for solving this by 2040.

[@musicalneptunian]

Let's cut this to the chase. A nuclear power plant needs water for cooling. If water runs out it goes into shutdowns or even meltdowns. That immediately rules out them ever being cheap for Australia - the driest continent one earth with periodic megadroughts - to build. The only constant water source is the ocean with nuclear power plants built on artificial islands in areas where cyclones do not occur. That rules out most tropical waters Qld etc. It probably leaves the coasts of Vic or SA or maybe Tas as being the only realistic ocean areas for building any plants.

[@1969cmp]

Coastal New South Wales.

[@jasonc9755]

Also believe there is a massive artesian water supply in central Australia. Suck it out and put it back far enough away to cool?

[@info88w11]

Not a problem solved easy peasy ..you know nothing about engineering.

[@info88w11]

Desalination plants and pumps can be collocated and powered from the new reactors and water supplies sourced from ocean water can be added to provide a cooling water reservoir to inland sites of any size required alongside the reactor and also provide potable water supply to the adjoining communities being supplied with power

[@frankszanto]

It is raining right now in Sydney. 857mm so far this year. The continent may be dry, but most people live in the wet parts.

[@eugenekochnieff7055]

The elephant in the room is transport fuel, only with abundant cheap nuclear electricity can we leverage a multi billion dollar investment in transport infrastructure. With cheap excess electricity we can run refineries backwards creating synthetic fuels thus closing the loop on emissions. We have over 100 years of technological advancement in ICE Vehicles that will never be fully replaced by this silly obsession with EVs.