The obvious thing to do is to continue the trajectory we are on. We will install 5 GW of solar this year and about 2.4 GW of wind. That will displace about 3.7 GW of existing coal and gas or the equivalent of a 2.5 GW nuclear plant . If we keep that up for about 8 years we will have enough generation to supply all our current electricity. demand. Along the way when we get to about 70% renewables we will see how much additional storage if any that we need. We are fortunate on the NEM that existing hydro can provide 25% of peak demand and there are some very easy options to increase peak power without new dams.
Then with intelligent demand response, i.e. no disconnections but moving time insensitive demand, smart charging of EVs, grid control of hot water heating etc as well as the storage that generators and prosumers are installing behind the meter, we will then have a choice whether we will have excess generation like we have always had or some larger dedicated storage such as hydrogen or large pumped hydro, flow batteries etc. We can easily have a 95% renewable grid long before the first fuel was loaded into a single Gen III reactor

For the full cost of US$33 bn for 2.2 GW Plant, we could build 7,000 MW of wind, 8,000 MW of tracking solar, 10,000 MW of rooftop solar, 6,000 MW of pumped hydro and 5,000 MW of batteries. Annual output would be between 60 and 65 TWh, minimum output on a hot afternoon will be between 10,000 and 20,000 MW and minimum output at night will be about 6-7,000 MW. The spinning reserve is built in. I.e. for the same investment you get almost 4 times the annual power, 10 times the summer peak output.

Annual operating cost per MWh for the renewable system will be about A$15/MWh. US nuclear plants are costing about US$30-40 to operate.
The UK has a far stronger case for nuclear, their plants will be more efficient, have higher minimum demand and yet both Hitachi and Toshiba have recently abandoned plants there after spending billions and trying to offload them to Korean and Chinese companies. India has reduced its nuclear programme by 2/3rds, China hasn’t ordered a new nuclear plant in 3 years and the 23 plants proposed under the Obama administration have been reduced to one, Plant Vogtle. Plant Summer was abandoned after US$9bn was spent on it.

This article is wrong on so many fronts it is unbelievable.
1. Germany’s production of power from Brown coal is falling see energy charts.de. It has fallen from 145 TWh in 2013 to 131 TWh last year even while exports increased and nuclear fell by 20 TWh and net exports increased by 8TWh
2. As for nuclear the 2,200 MW Plant Vogtle is costing US$25 b plus financing costs, insurance and long term waste storage. It needs at least 6,500 MW of other plants operating at less than 65% capacity to provide spinning reserve. It will produce about 17 TWh per year assuming it can sell all the power it can make.

Given the variability of demand in Australia it is unlikely demand will be there to provide minimum demand in any market region for a 2.2 GW plant plus the spinning reserves it needs, thus in autumn and spring it will be ramped down to 50-70% of its rated power so, in the Australian context, unless you put it next to Snowy II there is no chance of it achieving American style 92% CF.

There will be 6 weeks every 18 months when maximum output is 1,100 MW assuming there is no need ever for maintenance shut downs outside of refuelling.

Even assuming we could build a plant for the same cost as the Americans – an extremely courageous assumption for a first of a kind project for us, with our current lack of heavy engineering capability ,

For the full cost of US$33 bn, we could build 7,000 MW of wind, 8,000 MW of tracking solar, 10,000 MW of rooftop solar, 6,000 MW of pumped hydro and 5,000 MW of batteries. Annual output would be between 60 and 65 TWh, minimum output on a hot afternoon will be between 10,000 and 20,000 MW and minimum output at night will be about 6-7,000 MW. The spinning reserve is built in. I.e. for the same investment you get almost 4 times the annual power, 10 times the summer peak output.

By using synthetic inertia on the wind and solar farms and real inertia on hydro and rapid response on the batteries you can have an up slew rate of about 15,000 MW/s in the case of lost generation somewhere else and a down slew rate of 25,000 MW/s if the system loses connection. The nuclear plant cannot safely change power by more than 300 MW/hour.

If the nuclear plants is forced off line for any reason, the typical power down power up cycle takes 48-72 hours + whatever time repairs take

Annual operating cost per MWh for the renewable system will be about A$15/MWh. US nuclear plants are costing about US$30-40 to operate.

In addition a two unit nuclear plant like plan Vogtle will use 40 GL of water per year. The whole Barwon water region with a population of 300,000 people uses 30 GL.

The problem in Victoria was 200 GW. 300 GW of tracking solar provides 200 GW+ from 7:30AM to 7PM. It can be installed in a year and costs about $420m.

The UK has a far stronger case for nuclear, their plants will be more efficient, operate at lower temperatures i.e higher Carnot efficiency, have higher minimum demand and yet both Hitachi and Toshiba have recently abandoned plants there after spending billions and trying to offload them to Korean and Chinese companies. India has reduced its nuclear programme by 2/3rds, China hasn’t ordered a new nuclear plant in 3 years and the 23 plants proposed under the Obama administration have been reduced to one, Plant Vogtle. Plant Summer was abandoned after US$9bn was spent on it.

Nuclear is a dream

I don’t much care how my power is generated, nor who supplies it, provided it’s least cost & available 24/7! That’s how it was in the past when State Govt’s were responsible for power generation.

ALL options should be on the table, including; fossil fuel generation by either coal or gas; the ‘Unreliables’ of Wind & Solar; Bio; Hydro; plus nuclear (uranium or Thorium or the long promised fusion technology, assuming of course that the current bans against nuclear are lifted!).

Each should then stand on its own two feet with NO SUBSIDIES, in fair & open competition with one another against pre-determined MINIMUM Performance levels set by the Govt (eg +99% availability) with associated substantial financial penalties imposed upon ANY energy provider who fails to meet mandatory performance levels.

How each energy provider generates their power would be their sole decision & risk. Let the open market then decide with whom they might invest by way of an IPO & associated Business Case setting out ALL relevant details for investors to make their own financial decisions.

In keeping with their ideology the Greens will doubtless put their money where their mouth is & invest heavily in the ‘Unreliables’ of wind & solar etc, indeed so too might I. But NOT before I get to see a fully detailed Business Case, and that of their competitors, especially those in the fossil fuel & nuclear industry to compare relevant CapEx., ROI over 40-50 year life cycle, reliability factors & related performance against 99% mandatory minimum requirements.

That should flesh out the commercial realities of the energy generation market!

Basic understanding of Thorium liquid salt reactors is not that difficult if people are willing to consider it.

A Uranium high water pressure reactor is a bit like cooking uranium in your thermomix. Most next gen fission reactors separate the nuclear material and the troublesome high pressure water. Maybe salt reactors are more like making a stew on an electric stove top and being able to through in all the spices and leftovers you want.

The second best time is right now.

It’s never too late to start doing the right thing.

Gil, I would point her to the numerous information sources (including the peer-reviewed scientific paper by Qvist and Brook 2015) showing from real world examples that nuclear remains by some margin the fastest path to decarbonisation:
https://climategamble.net/2015/12/01/how-fast-can-nuclear-be-built-weekly-pic/
https://thoughtscapism.com/2017/12/11/off-the-press-nuclear-energy-is-a-fast-and-inexpensive-way-to-improve-the-world/
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124074