Nuclear Power For Australia?

[SirRumpole]

I haven't done the research, but Canada might be a better comparison.

You can do that, I'm back in sloth mode.

 

[PZ.]

You can do that, I'm back in sloth mode.

That would be right... four on the floor, a blonde in the back and you're making me do the driving ?

 

[Smurf1976]

Why Australia’s power is more expensive

Plus the bit everyone misses - in Australia we have a lot of people clipping the ticket.

White collar bloat as I like to call it. Money that's disappearing into things that aren't generation, transmission, distribution and which isn't legitimate engineering or work aimed at planning for the future or otherwise improving the system.

If nuclear power is so expensive, how can Sweden with a population of 10 million support 3 reactors and maintain low power prices?

How much something costs has a lot to do with how one goes about it.

In Australia we're approaching electricity as a soft science subject with a focus on human behaviours, financial markets, ideology, emotion, spirits and so on.

Other countries treat it as a hard science subject, put competent people in charge, and get on with it.

Go back half a century and we also treated it as a hard science subject. Indeed I do have in my possession some of the detailed nuclear investigations carried out at the time. Detailed as in a specific site was identified, conceptual layout was drawn up, drilling was done to confirm geology and the whole thing was costed with a construction program, workforce requirements and so on to go with it.

Only reason they weren't built is other options came in cheaper at the time, but the question was certainly asked and examined in great detail.

Every state's had a serious look at it in the past. As in sites identified, costs estimated for a specific project and so on.

The NT site did end up generating electricity, albeit from a gas-fired plant but it's on the exact site that was considered for nuclear.