Australia's chief energy idiot rejects nuclear

[GregLocock]

Australia declines to join UK and US-led nuclear energy development pact

Acting Prime Minister Richard Marles says the agreement, which Australia had been expected to join, is not relevant to the country's circumstances.

www.abc.net.au

"Labor, led by Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen, who is attending the UN climate summit in Baku, is vehemently opposed to the technology, saying it would mean coal power emissions would continue for longer — until the nuclear option became viable a decade or more from now."

Admittedly the best time to start building a nuclear power station is 10 years ago, but it can be done in less. The first commercial nuclear reactor was designed in 1 year and built in 3, and was used for 47 years. UAE's 5 GW station has 4 reactors, each took 9 years to build, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant

The latter is easily cost competitive with 'free' wind and solar, once intermittency and longevity is accounted for.

 

[TugboatEng]

If UAE thinks nuclear is more cost effective than oil, that's really saying something...

 

[GregLocock]

Yes it's a pretty surprising choice. I think there is more to it than that to be honest.

 

[TugboatEng]

Well, they could be producing fissile materials for their rowdy neighbors. That could definitely make the reactors more profitable.

Or, it gives them more flexibility over oil production. OPEC can cut oil production without impacting domestic prices as much.

 

[GregLocock]

They are also installing a modicum of solar. Turns out they are net IMPORTERS of natural gas, hmm