Cheaper electricity, less emissions and ready by 2035 are some of the Coalition’s core promises on nuclear energy, but are they backed by evidence?
tl;dr - no
Cheaper electricity, less emissions and ready by 2035 are some of the Coalition’s core promises on nuclear energy, but are they backed by evidence?
tl;dr - no
Basically anythibg that isnt SMR like what the French and Japanese have been doing for years.
Herr Spud has said that SMRs are what the coalition policy is dependent on (despite the fact that there are zero SMRs generating consumer power anywhere in the world today). Maybe that’s why The Guardian references this design, not whatever it is you’re banging on about…
Well then the coalition are fucking morons then. Have they actually said what they are going to use? Thw guardian references SMRs cos thats the only one that was included in the csiro report despite not a single watt of power being generate by them ask the csiro why they did this?
I can’t remember where but they mention in the report that SMRs were the most suitable form of reactor for Australia according to some industry consultation and it being difficult to realise the full costings of the large scale “traditional” nuclear reactors due to government subsidies, lack of transparency and different labour costs in Australia VS somewhere else 50 years ago.
Do you think the Coalition (or any hypothetical but still possible Australian Government) could actually deliver nuclear by 2040? Given the lack of expertise and experience, as well as pushback from States and lack of private investment I think it’s really unlikely
Hell no they got no chance delivering it on time and on budget but thats literally every single government project in the history of government projects.