Siso

Can you list problems with nuclear that are not political or public perception, not Chernobyl or Fukushima

China are leading the world with nuclear gen 4 development. Another tool in the fight against global warming.

We are still waiting for an honest cost of the intermittents plan!

Lets start putting some CEO's in prison. We were always told they get their good salaries because the buck stops with them. Corporates are always pushing the boundary. Banks have form as we found out from the royal commission a few years ago. I think the worst that was happened was one of them lost his job with a big payout. Qantas is the same, Woolworths ect. If any of us deliberately did what they try to get away with the consequences would be different. They have lawyers to supposedly keep them compliant.

We don't know if private investors won't touch it. NP is currently banned in Australia so no company has ever looked at it seriously. LIFT THE BAN! The problem is the large cost out lay initially. If governments wanted to finance it they could build and sell later if they wanted to. I personally would rather they didn't. There a several companies that are designing small NPP for mine sites and small isolated communities. Approx. up to 20MWe that only need refueling every 20 years or so. Maybe cheaper than diesel in the long run, the problem is you have to pay for all the fuel you need for that 20 years upfront.

$600B for the nuclear plan-lie. Government owned would be great, privatisation hasn't really worked.

Sunlight is free, converting it to electricity certainly isn't

The later ones don't go through as much testing as the company's are trying to get them on the market quicker hence have more silly breakdowns eg broken blades etc. Needing larger cranes for access. Batterys are a good thing for there demand response and should be a small part of any grid system. Nuclear is expensive but by the time you add in storage, syn cons , transmission, 3 times overbuild for the capacity factor, 2 maybe 3 rebuilds for the lifetime limits, is it really more expensive especially if you build multiple units? We don't know because the current government lied about the price of nuclear and won't or can't tell us the total price of 90% intermittents grid. A lot of this infrastructure is going to be underutilised (batterys, transmission etc) Underutilised equipment is expensive, ask any business. If you still need it , you charge a lot for it. Basic economics. Hydrogen is supposed to be a big part of the plan but plants in Australia are falling over all the time. But we will just keep pouring tax payers money into it. Windfarms in the north UK are getting paid when they are curtailed because the grid can't handle the power. Wander when that will happen here. Windy in Europe at the moment, France only exporting about 10GWs at the moment at 17grams CO2/kWh. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR/72h/hourly

No one is saying we should keep burning coal. There are other alternatives, just need some people to get out of cold war thinking and get on with it. I like to think that the reactors we are using know are like aircraft were in the 1930's. Considering it is less then 70 years since the first commercial reactor came online, development and research pretty well stopped fpr several years and there was no world wars to accelerate more development. Imagine what we could have if we had put as much developement into NP as we did for aircraft. No vested interests. I worked in the wind industry for over 10 years and could see how good it was at the start when it was just supplementing the current grid at about 30%and how it was making prices more volatile and the amount extra infrastructure that is needed as penetration increased.. We are putting all our eggs in one basket on a plan that has never been done before. The current governments plan as I understand it is to have 82% renewable energy by 2030. We have about 40% Australia wide at the moment, so we have 5 years to to double it. The first 30 was the easy part, now we have to build more generation plus the extras that we haven't really needed previously. (Batterys, syncons, transmission etc.) Some of the first MW size turbines are also starting to approach end of life as well so we will have to start replacing as well as building new.

While we can carry on about Gina, we need to remember she employs a lot of Australians and pay them very well for the most part. These companies they run are competing on the world stage with companies that don't have the stringent environmental and workplace laws. She as far as I know working within the law, so if you have any problems with them, contact your local politician to have the laws change. We should be supporting successful Australians, not trying to take them down. Owing to the energy debacle we are not really going to have much else happening in Australia for a while. I see BHP is looking at opening a copper in the US. We should be doing more here to keep the jobs in Australia. I don't work in mining. Don't really know about Clive.

No body is goin to be fair dinkum. Politicians are involved.

I didn't say do nothing, I said do it in a controlled way. No one in the world has done what Australia is trying to do without large amounts of hydro, geothermal or nuclear. We have H2 plants falling over all over the country and it is costing us. The stupidly that is fueling this whole thing is ridiculous. The UK converted a coal plant to wood pellets(Drax) and ship the wood pellets in from America on bunker oil burning ships. Fossil fuel to cut and process it. I don't know what $/MWh it would be. https://axedrax.uk/about/drax/ France is exporting 11GW of power into countrys around it at the moment down from 15GW earlier in the week. If we were serious we would revisit the nuclear thing sensibly. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR/72h/hourly We don't know what the intermittents plan in Australia is going to cost and even if it will work. A lot of the coal plants are running on minimal maintenance regimes as you would expect from private company's with aging plant that is being demonised

No-one said it was dangerous, there wasn't a whole story to tell.

Carbon is a problem. So is the continual lying to the public. Intermittents cost a lot though as we are finding out. Australia at 30-40% intermittent penetration and people are already having to choose to heat there homes or eat. Australia could go net 0 tomorrow and it will make no difference to the global warming so why not do a transition in a sustainable strucured way where people can afford to heat their homes and industry can adapt instead of going hell for leather.

Wasn't telling a story, just an interesting fact. You are coming across as being a bit precious.