Mythbusting Energy claims

With the increasingly shrill debate on nuclear energy in Australia, there is no shortage of articles espousing the different views. Unfortunately, most of those supporting the government's claims that Nuclear is the most expensive source of energy base their arguments on official reports from the CSIRO and the AEMO. Both of these organisations have submitted reports that support the government's position. Given that both the CSIRO and AEMO are well-respected organisations, it should be enough for the government to win the case. But not so. 

The opposition under Peter Dutton has made nuclear energy the foundation of the Coalition's low-emission policy. This change in energy policy for the coalition came rather late in the electoral cycle, with an election due in the next 12 months, and after the Labor government has committed significant resources to an extremely expensive rapid decarbonisation based on renewables, wind and solar.

So we have the battle lines. Labor is supported by the institutions of government, and most of the media, because it is a left-of-centre government, and the many vested interests in business, who have either already received significant renewable energy contracts or expect to do so.

On the pro-nuclear side, we have the coalition, and a small but vocal pro-nuclear lobby, and the experience of the world in its use of nuclear energy demonstrating safety, reliability and lower consumer costs, but also with some negatives due to long and expensive construction times.

The coalition's case is helped by the facile attempts by the CSIRO and the AEMO biasing their reports pro-renewables. Professional analysis of the reports has exposed multiple fallacious assumptions which if corrected would reverse the pro-renewables conclusion. 

I have posted on this before. See Why is the CSIRO lying to us? and Is the AEMO also lying to us?

Most recently I came across a paper by Robert Idel titled "The Levelised Full Cost of Electricity"

This is an important paper as it provides a robust basis for comparing the full cost of various sources of electricity generation. In doing so it highlights the problems with the CSIRO and AEMO reports and it provides real-world calculation showing that the Levelized Full Cost of Electricity for Renewables, Wind and Solar, is substantially greater, not less, but greater than gas, coal, and nuclear. The table below, reproduced from the paper, shows the results of the calculation for two locations Germany and Texas, and shows that the cost of Wind+Solar is either double (Texas) or quadruple (Germany) the cost of Nuclear.

If I can borrow from the Mythbusters, Chris Bowen's claim that "Nuclear is the most expensive form of electricity generation" is BUSTED!

The Hidden Costs of Renewable Energy

Rising Energy costs in many countries following widespread policies to rapidly decarbonise their economies have ignited a closer look at the real cost of low-carbon generation technologies. 

In Australia, the debate has gained greater intensity following the Coalition opposition parties declaring their policy to include nuclear power in the energy mix. This is a direct denial of the Labor government's anti-nuclear stance. With a federal election now due in less than 12 months, the debate is in full swing. Into this debate the IPA (the Institute of Public Affairs) has lobbed a detailed report by Professor Stephen Wilson titled “The Ruinous Cost Of Free Energy: Why An Electricity System Built On Renewables Is The Most Expensive Of All Options” The report presents a direct challenge to the Labor governments oft-repeated claims that renewables is the cheapest form of energy and nuclear is the most expensive. It is well worth reading the full report, but here are the key points of his analysis.

Historical Context: From Low to High Electricity Prices

Australia once enjoyed some of the lowest electricity prices in the industrialized world. This was largely due to its reliance on baseload generation, primarily from coal. However, the shift towards renewable energy has led to a dramatic increase in electricity costs. Today, Australia has some of the highest electricity prices globally.

The Concept of Total System Cost

Wilson emphasizes the importance of considering the Total System Cost when evaluating energy systems. This concept goes beyond the simple cost of generating electricity and includes all associated expenses, such as infrastructure, storage, and transmission². According to Wilson, a system based on renewable energy sources like wind and solar is significantly more expensive than one based on baseload generation, such as coal or nuclear power.

Infrastructure Investments

One of the primary reasons for the high cost of renewable energy systems is the substantial infrastructure investments required. Wind and solar power generation necessitates extensive infrastructure, including storage facilities and transmission networks. These investments are essential to manage the variability of renewable energy sources and ensure a stable supply of electricity.

The Challenge of Variability

Renewable energy sources are inherently variable. The sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow. This variability poses a significant challenge for maintaining a stable electricity supply. To balance the grid, additional costs are incurred to manage these fluctuations. This often involves using backup power sources, such as gas turbines, which can quickly ramp up production when renewable output drops.

Impact on Consumers

Ultimately, the higher costs associated with renewable energy systems are passed on to consumers. Wilson argues that the increased infrastructure, storage, and grid balancing expenses result in higher electricity bills for households and businesses. This contradicts the common perception that renewable energy is a cheaper alternative.

Comparing Costs: Renewable vs. Baseload Systems

Wilson provides a stark comparison between the costs of renewable and baseload energy systems. He estimates that a renewables-based system could be two to three times more expensive than a baseload system. Furthermore, a ‘renewables only’ system could be five to six times more expensive. These figures highlight the significant financial burden that a transition to renewable energy could impose on society.

The Myth of Free Energy

The term “free energy” is often used to describe renewable energy sources. However, Wilson argues that this is a misleading concept. While the sun and wind are free, the process of converting these natural resources into usable electricity is far from cost-free. The infrastructure, maintenance, and grid management required to support renewable energy systems come with substantial expenses.

The Role of Government Policies

Government policies play a crucial role in shaping the energy landscape. Subsidies and incentives for renewable energy have driven significant investment in wind and solar power. However, Wilson suggests that these policies may not always consider the full economic impact. By focusing on the apparent benefits of renewable energy, policymakers might overlook the hidden costs that consumers ultimately bear.

The Need for a Balanced Approach

Wilson’s analysis underscores the need for a balanced approach to energy policy. While renewable energy has its merits, it should not be pursued at the expense of economic stability. A diversified energy mix that includes baseload generation can provide a more reliable and cost-effective solution. This approach ensures that the benefits of renewable energy are harnessed without imposing undue financial burdens on consumers.

Conclusion: Rethinking Renewable Energy

Stephen Wilson’s article challenges the prevailing narrative that renewable energy is the most cost-effective solution for the future. By highlighting the hidden costs and complexities associated with renewable energy systems, he calls for a more nuanced understanding of the energy landscape. As we move towards a sustainable future, it is essential to consider the full economic impact of our energy choices and strive for a balanced and pragmatic approach.

Proverb Images with answers

 Here are the answers to the Proverb Images question I posed.

A stitch in time saves 9 - Copilot version

A stitch in time saves 9 - my version

The early bird catches the worm - Copilot version

The early bird catches the worm - my version

Silence is golden - Copilot version

Silence is golden - my version

Too many cooks spoil the broth - Copilot version

Too many cooks spoil the broth - my version

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush - Copilot Version

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush - my version

I am sure you guessed them all!

AI creativity challenge

 You may have noticed I have started exploring the latest AI tools. I have used it to create poetry (see AI poetry shoot out ) and challenged the tools themselves to assess the benefits of AI (see 10 ways where AI will make a contribution) and their threat (see 10 Ways AI can be a threat to humanity).

Today I decided to evaluate AI's creativity. The challenge was to produce a visual representation of certain proverbs. In the first test, I simply asked Microsoft's Copilot to "Please provide an image to represent the proverb " text of proverb".  I ran the test on 5 well-known proverbs.

In the second test, I described the image that I thought would represent each of the proverbs I had used in the first test. However the images Copilot produced in response to my descriptions did not match what I had intended. And in virtually all the cases, despite multiple attempts, I could not get the image I conceived. In the end I gave up and accepted what I thought was the best. 

Here are the results of the first test. I won't name the proverbs here, to let you puzzle them out. 

Proverb 1 Copilot Conceived

Proverb 2 Copilot Conceived

Proverb 3 Copilot Conceived

Proverb 4 Copilot Conceived

Proverb 5 Copilot Conceived

And here are the images for the second test.

Proverb 1 -My conception

Proverb 2 My Conception

Proverb 3 My conception

Proverb 4 My Conception

Proverb 5 My conception

I am sure you will guess them, but I will post the answers  in a few days.

Net Zero is NOT achievable without nuclear

Today, Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition in Australia, made a bold declaration. The Liberal National Party (LNP) has unveiled its policy for Australia’s energy transition, advocating nuclear energy as the primary source of carbon-free baseload electricity. Dutton has issued a challenge, setting the stage for a direct clash with the Labor government’s strategy, which focuses solely on renewable energy.

Labor, in its quest to position Australia as a renewable energy titan, has initiated a deluge of renewable energy projects. The country is inundated with daily announcements of colossal wind farms, sometimes offshore, or encroaching upon prime agricultural land, the destruction of pristine environments, or the conversion of farmland for new transmission lines or solar farms. There are also new targets for electric vehicle (EV) sales and funding for solar panel manufacturing, despite the market being saturated with Chinese-made panels.

Chris Bowen has been appointed by the Labor government to spearhead this transition. His efforts have been nothing short of formidable. Bowen is unwavering in his mission, sparing no exaggeration and showing little concern for factual precision. He proclaims Australia as a renewable energy colossus, denounces nuclear as the costliest and riskiest technology, asserts that net zero is attainable without baseload power sources, and suggests that batteries can bridge the energy gap. Moreover, he promises to lower electricity costs, maintain power supply, and bolster industry growth.

This stance persists against a backdrop of rising electricity prices, the gradual shutdown of coal-fired power plants, and load shedding during peak energy demand. Consumers and businesses are incentivized to reduce consumption during these periods to keep the power grid stable—well, sort of.

No one, not even Bowen, finds the current state of affairs satisfactory. Yet, Bowen insists this is merely a transitional phase and that ‘she’ll be right.’

Amidst this turmoil, Peter Dutton has boldly proclaimed that the emperor has no clothes. He has criticized Labor’s target of a 43% emissions reduction by 2030 as unrealistic and has prioritized the cost of living over the renewable energy transition. Dutton has also highlighted nuclear energy as the linchpin of baseload power necessary to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recognized that net zero emissions cannot be realized without nuclear power. While some, including Bowen, remain unconvinced, many believe that renewables alone are insufficient for achieving net zero.

One of the most persuasive arguments against the feasibility of renewables alone concerns resource availability. The materials required to produce the necessary minerals for solar panels and wind turbines are unlikely to be mined by 2050.

Referencing Simon Michaux’s “The Green Energy Myth,” the table below outlines the volume and types of minerals needed to meet net zero goals and the estimated years of mining required to obtain these resources. Focusing on copper alone, it would take over 250 years at current mining rates to acquire the amount needed for net zero. Evidently, achieving net zero without nuclear is an impossibility.

Ref Simon Michaux:The Green Energy Myth

Professor Simon Michaux, a leading researcher in the field of minerals within a circular economy, is currently with the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK) and formerly of the University of Queensland. Michaux aims to revolutionize the interplay between energy, minerals, and industrialization to foster sustainable material consumption in society. His recent presentation at the Navigating Nuclear symposium at UNSW, titled "Challenges and bottlenecks to the green transition", addressed these issues.

These inconvenient truths are likely to be disregarded by Mr. Bowen, but Mr. Dutton has certainly brought some compelling facts to the table. 

Climate Emergency claims debunked

 I recently came across a paper that admittedly was published some years ago in 2019, but it is well worth a review as it directly addresses many of the claims made by climate zealots.

The paper  "The True and False of Climate Change" was authored by M.Ray Thomasson and Lee C. Gerhard. 

 It covers a range of claims by climate change advocates and provides evidence to refute them. The paper is not too long and worth a read but here is a summary.

Climate change advocates' claims;-

• temperatures are higher than they have been in the last 200 years: TRUE.
• temperatures are higher than they have ever been. FALSE.   
• there are more hurricanes FALSE
• there have been more droughts: FALSE
• there have been more wet seasons: FALSE
• the strength of hurricanes has increased: FALSE
• the number of violent hurricanes has increased: FALSE
• CO2 is the major Greenhouse Gas: FALSE
• CO2 increases will drive temperatures to catastrophic levels: FALSE
• CO2 is the main driver of temperature increases: FALSE
• CO2 levels today are higher than they have ever been: FALSE
• sea level is rising: TRUE
• the rate of sea level rise is increasing: FALSE
• changes in solar irradiance can be ignored: FALSE
• we can ignore the effects of the sun: FALSE
• we can ignore sun spots: FALSE
• CO2 is a pollutant: FALSE
• Temperature and CO2 go up together: FALSE
• Models can be used to predict climate: FALSE
• the pause in temperature increases is not real.FALSE
• there is a 97% consensus that humans are causing the climate to change: FALSE

I won't reproduce all the arguments they provide but here are a couple of the diagrams supporting their case. They also provide a comprehensive list of references. 

After reading this paper it becomes very difficult to sustain the "climate emergency" mantra of many a climate zealot.  Consider the possibility that the Climate Change theory is just wrong. That there is no climate emergency. That the current warming has been a totally natural increase due to the earth coming out of a cold period due to solar cycles. That the temperature will level off and decrease as the next cold cycle kicks in. Consider the upheaval the Climate Change theory has created. Massive changes in infrastructure, the transformation of manufacturing industries, destructive mining for rare minerals for solar panels, and massive increases in the cost of living by swapping low-cost FF energy sources for expensive intermittent renewables. It could have been all for naught. A sobering thought.

Excess deaths due to vaccination

It began as a mere trickle. Actuaries noticed an uptick in deaths—deaths that didn’t align with the typical COVID profile. Funeral parlors reported increased profits, yet the demographics of these deaths didn’t correlate with COVID fatalities. Young people were suddenly dying. Subsequent studies revealed excess deaths unrelated to COVID, including a rise in cardiac arrests, particularly among athletes. There were subtle hints that vaccines might play a role. Adverse event statistics were far higher than anticipated, and embalmers discovered unusual clots. Across various regions worldwide, there emerged a correlation between vaccination rates and the surge in deaths. What started as a trickle has now become a flood. In the past week, I’ve posted several articles in On the Grapevine

And most recently Dr John Campbell has posted under the title "Proof" another study concluding that excess deaths are due to mRNA vaccination.

If this is indeed true—and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to deny—we, and by ‘we’ I mean the global collective, have inadvertently but negligently caused the deaths of millions of people. We compelled hundreds of millions to receive multiple doses of a novel vaccine in what can only be described as a panicked response to a new virus. In doing so, we disregarded our own pandemic management protocols, undermined our vaccine testing procedures, and compromised our democratic rights to informed decision-making. If this turns out to be accurate, it will stand as one of the greatest self-inflicted tragedies of modern times. Perhaps even more concerning is the lack of curiosity exhibited by our institutions. We urgently need transparent investigations to assess our missteps—not only to hold individuals accountable for these choices but also to prevent their recurrence.

Move over SMRs , here comes the Micro Reactor

For over 70 years, nuclear energy has been a reliable and efficient source of power. It boasts safety, cost-effectiveness, and minimal emissions. In fact, it stands as the sole scalable low-emission energy option capable of providing continuous operation 24/7. While wind and solar energy are also scalable, their intermittent nature poses challenges. Hydro energy, unfortunately, lacks scalability—it’s either available or not.

As the world grapples with the threat of catastrophic climate change, many turn to renewables like wind and solar. However, their low energy density and intermittent supply prevent them from serving as baseload power for modern societies. Intermittency necessitates backup, which typically comes from fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Although energy storage solutions are improving, they remain inefficient and costly, unable to fully address the variability of wind and solar power. After all, we can’t simply ask industries or individuals to go without energy during intermittent periods.

Nuclear energy offers a promising solution, yet inexplicably, some of the loudest voices advocating for fossil fuel elimination also push for nuclear shutdowns. Fortunately, recent developments have shifted this narrative. Factors like war, severe winters, and consumer pressure due to high energy costs have forced green groups to reconsider nuclear energy.

Enter Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These innovative designs promise reduced construction costs and implementation times, making nuclear energy more accessible worldwide.

But that’s not all. Micro nuclear reactors take miniaturization to the next level, offering power capacities of 1 to 5 MW—small enough to fit into shipping containers. Imagine the transformative impact on global energy distribution, making affordable energy widely available.

For a deeper dive, check out the video below, which provides essential background information

Minor surcharge, major irritation!

Like many of you, I sometimes find myself disproportionately annoyed by the little things. They might seem small in the grand scheme of life, the universe, and everything, but they’re more than just a minor nuisance in our daily lives. You might chuckle at the buildup, but bear with me.

I’m referring to the seemingly trivial surcharges and charity requests that have become far too common in our financial transactions. Take the credit card surcharge, for example. It might appear fair for a business to recoup an additional expense. However, businesses already set their prices to cover such costs, so why isn’t the credit card fee included in the product price? We don’t see separate charges for employee overtime or weekend rates, nor for maternity leave or late tax filings. Businesses typically calculate their product prices by tallying up their costs and adding a profit margin. So, why tack on a surcharge?

Some might argue that the payment method incurs this cost, and customers could choose another method, like cash, to avoid the fee. But that’s not entirely accurate. Many businesses don’t offer a cash option, especially for online purchases. More importantly, credit card payments are often less costly for retailers than cash, which requires more handling, stringent shrinkage checks, frequent bank visits, and extensive reconciliations. The only real advantage of cash for a retailer is the potential for tax evasion by underreporting income. But offering a discount for tax avoidance isn’t something you can advertise without raising eyebrows. So, why impose a credit card surcharge? It’s not for the reasons you might think. The practice began with large government entities that could enforce it and has since spread everywhere.

Then there’s its younger sibling, soon to be encountered at a supermarket near you: the request to round up your total or make a donation. What a service! The retailer takes a bit extra from you and donates on your behalf—no receipt, no tax deduction, no trace. While I’m sure the donations do reach charities, they may not go to organizations you’d choose to support. Everyone has their own criteria for charitable giving. Personally, I decline to support charities where administrative costs exceed 20% of their donations, which is often the case. It’s always a ‘no’ from me, but being asked is irritating. We don’t want to be solicited for money as we walk down the street, as happens in many less affluent parts of the world, so why should we tolerate it while shopping? The request feels like a nagging reminder to do the right thing. So please, retailers, stop pestering your customers.

Maybe I’m overgeneralizing. Perhaps you love it, but I have my doubts.

I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Is the AEMO also lying to us ?

In an earlier post, I asked the question Why is the CSIRO lying to us? It covered the very significant shortcomings fothe CSIRO's Gencost report, especially it bias against Nuclear in favour of renewables. 

Today I am asking a similar question; Is the AEMO (Australia's Energy Market Operator) also lying to us?

It seems so.  In a rather detailed YouTube presentation, Aiden Morrison explores  AEMO's Integrated System Plan (ISP) for transforming Australia's energy grid towards Net Zero. The video titled "Unravelling AEMO's Integrated System Plan: World-class, incompetent, or corrupt? is well worth it, if you have the time and a fair amount of technical savvy. 

If not, spoiler alert, Yes it seems the ISP has serious flaws which all work to underestimate the costs of renewables and substantially overstate the cost of nuclear. 

So both the CSIRO and AEMO are producing biased reports to support the government's chosen options. This is a betrayal of their role as independent bodies whose role is to provide the best solutions for Australia.

The UN's world of the absurd

Alan Baker, director of the Institute of Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs nails it in his recent article titled The UN’s World of the absurd.

"Only in such a world can the majority of the international community deliberately ignore the openly declared genocidal intentions of Iran, Hamas and the PLO in their

Only in the world of the absurd can a despicable purveyor of terror, Hamas, carry out a brutal massacre, killing over a thousand innocent people, torturing, murdering and carrying out sadistic mass rape, over a space of just a few hours, and then run home to Gaza taking with them hundreds of hostages.

Only in the world of the absurd can the Palestinian representative organization that encourages, finances, supports and represents such murderers be feted and upgraded by the majority of member states in the international community.

Only in the world of the absurd can a group of non-democratic, terror-supporting states oblige the United Nations General Assembly by proposing a resolution that indulges in pampering a terror-supporting entity in a misguided and surreal demonstration of naïveté, skewed political correctness and acute hypocrisy.

Only in the same world of the absurd can 143 states parrot their support for what they blindly proclaim to be a "two-state solution" without really understanding what they are talking about out of ignorance and stupidity.

Only in the world of the absurd can the majority of the international community deliberately ignore the openly declared genocidal intentions of Iran, Hamas and the Palestinian Liberation Organization in their efforts to eliminate the Jewish state and kill all Jews. And this, while at the same time upgrading the Palestinian representation in the United Nations.

Lastly, only in the world of the absurd can all this happen at the same time as incited and handsomely financed and organized groups of violent, hysterical, antisemitic demonstrators occupy campuses and town centers in U.S. and European cities, calling for the elimination of the only Jewish state."

and I add,

Only in the world of the absurd can a so-called "International" Criminal Court charge the democratically elected leaders of the country attacked by a genocidal terrorist group, with "crimes against humanity" when they defend their country by trying to eliminate the terrorist group that started the war and do so with the lowest level of civilian casualties of any previous such wars. 

and again, (added 23 May)

Only in the world of the absurd would democratic European countries Spain, Ireland and Norway reward the terrorist attack of Hamas by giving diplomatic recognition to a so-called Palestinian "state”. A state which does not satisfy any of the pre-conditions of statehood; well-defined borders, a single government that holds elections, and one which wants to live in peaceful co-existence with its neighbours. 

AI poetry shoot out

A few months ago I had a play with Google's Bard AI product by asking it to produce a poem on 'tea'. I thought it produced a surprisingly good poem.

Given the growing competition in general-purpose AI products, we have seen the release of a number of products by the major players, including Microsoft's Copilot,Open AI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude and Google's Bard.

SO I thought why not re-visit the poetry challenge and see what these competing products produce. Here are the results. In each case, the prompt was "Please produce a poem about tea".

Copilot

Steeped Tranquility

In porcelain cups, warmth unfurls,

Amidst fragrant leaves, secrets swirl.

A sip of solace, a whispered plea,

Tea, the elixir of serenity.

Amber hues dance in morning light,

A symphony of flavors takes flight.

From jasmine blooms to chai's embrace,

Each brew tells tales of time and space.

Steam-kissed lips, a gentle sip, 

The world outside begins to slip. 

In quietude, we find our way, 

Tea, the muse of a tranquil day.

So raise your cup, let worries cease, 

Sip the magic, find inner peace. 

For in this humble leaf, we see, 

A universe steeped in harmony.

Claude

The Warmth of Tea

Fragrant tendrils of steam unfurl,

Rising from the ceramic's curl.

Amber liquid, deep and clear,

Inviting me to linger here.

A ritual steeped in calm delight,

A moment's pause to savor right.

Floral, earthy notes entwine,

Nature's balm in this cup of mine.

With each sip, I am transported,

To lush gardens zephyrs courted

Peace cascades with each beat,

In the warmth of this cuppa replete.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

ChatGPT 3.5

In porcelain cups, a world unfolds,

Where leaves dance in waters bold.

A brew of warmth, a soothing balm,

In every sip, a quiet calm.

From misty hills to ancient lands,

Tea whispers tales from distant strands.

Its fragrance floats on gentle breeze,

A melody to bring us ease.

In morning's light or twilight's gleam,

Tea beckons with its tranquil stream.

A ritual, a sacred rite,

To pause, to savor, to invite.

From jasmine's kiss to bergamot's zest,

Each flavor a journey, a quest.

With every cup, a journey's start,

To mend the soul, to soothe the heart.

So let us raise our cups on high,

To tea, the poet's endless sky.

In its embrace, we find release,

A moment's peace, a sweet release.

and finally the original produced by Google's Bard

Bard

"In porcelain cup, a golden brew,

Steaming tendrils reaching you.

A gentle scent, a fragrant sigh,

Unfurling secrets from the sky.

Emerald leaves, once sun-kissed green,

Infuse their essence, calm and keen.

A touch of honey, sweet and pure,

Enhances flavors, ever sure.

The first sip warms, a comforting fire,

Chasing away life's worries and ire.

A moment stolen, just for you,

Peace and solace, calming hue.

With every cup, a journey starts,

Across vast lands and beating hearts.

From rolling hills to misty shores,

The taste of life, forever yours.

So raise your cup and take a sip,

Let troubles fade, your spirit trip.

In every drop, a whisper lies,

The magic of tea, beneath the skies."

They all sound pretty good to me. What do you think?

The Ultra Safe Nuclear reactor

 Nuclear energy has re-emerged as an essential component of any Net Zero future. While many, mainly Green, groups continue to argue it is not 'essential', the IPCC has accepted this as the case.

The association with Nuclear weapons and the known longevity of nuclear waste products have remained the first visceral objection by those who oppose the technology. They typically bundle these as 'nuclear is just not safe'.

This is despite the exceptional safety record of nuclear power generation over 7 decades, comparable to Hydro and Solar power.  Added to this is the issue of cost. Nuclear technology has required custom design and construction which together with the need to meet onerous environmental constraints, has made each new build expensive and time-consuming. There is a wide range of construction times and costs.

Nevertheless, the drive towards Net Zero has seen a major rethink in addressing these issues. The construction time and cost problems are being solved by the introduction of Small Modular Reactors. Reactors that have lower power from 25-300 MW and mostly constructed using modules built largely off site in a repetitive manufacturing process. These can make significant reductions in construction times, down from a typical 8 years to 3-4 years and with cost per KW generated being halved.

At the same time safety is being addressed with the emergence of novel designs with built-in passive safety. I recently came across the Ultra Safe design, as exemplified in the following short video. Well worth a view.

With Nuclear it is not if but when. And countries that stick to the old prejudices will suffer energy poverty if they try to fulfil their Net Zero dream with solar and wind.

Unfortunately, too many countries, including Australia, are wearing blinkers.