If renewables fail to provide the energy needs of a population expected to grow by 20 million by 2070 and we have failed to start down the nuclear path, where does that leave us? South Korea built Barakah reactor in 12 years for $24.4 bn US, 7 would cost $170.8 bn you could double that and be comparable with renewables that need constant renewing with imported components. It does not have to be one or the other, nuclear added to our renewables would be nation building for future generations.
There is nothing inherently wrong with nuclear. But there is something wrong with it in the context of Australia. CSIRO and AEMO have done extensive modelling of this. Nuclear simply takes too long to build, and when it is built, it would cost more than renewables. If renewables weren't so cheap here, nuclear might have been a viable option. There is a reason why no one in the private sector wants to build a nuclear reactor here, because it's just uncompetitive.
Frontier Economics modelling finds nuclear not more expensive than renewables. Nuclear is proven technology and can we delivered in 15 - 20 years. Hydrogen is not proven technology Forrest has shelved his plans and Trufigura is the latest hydrogen failure. Nobody has given us a guarantee that renewables alone will meet our net zero targets or given us a full costings. If the nuclear ban was lifted investment would follow.
Because I do not believe that renewables will provide a reliable base load that will allow for manufacturing
This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation