Should Australia go Nuclear?

[Culprit]

I have never worked on a private or government Major project in the past 40 years that has finished under budget. I think a few may have come in on time but the costs have always blown out. The simple reason is that the original cost at the tender stage through to when the project starts years later is that the cost of materials and labor change and no one has control. The Hunter Class ships have a blowout and to cut that back we aren't building that many of them. LAND400 the Boxer has the same issue, the costs of materials have skyrocketed. These are major Private Companies that have blowouts and have to renegotiate with the Government. The Government can't say that's the price too bad, it doesn't work that way. Per contracts. Some companies overlook items in the contract and pay the price. The HMAS Canberra and Adelaide ran over budget and cost BAE Systems. Not to worry they copped that and get that back with the Hunter Class. Swings and Roundabouts.

[What'sinaname]

the time for nuclear was 40 years ago, perhaps it would have lessened some of the damage of fossil fuels. right now we are on the cusp of a renewable revolution, but potato-head Dutton decides now is the time.

we have the best country for harnessing solar & we have the most/highest purity silica sand for solar panel production. Albanese announced $1bn for solar panel manufacturing. Better late then never.

Does it hurt to consider and debate all options? Or do we want to be in a position 40 years from now when we look back and say, the time for nuclear was 40 years ago, but scare tactics and politics got in the way of doing the right thing.

[stui magpie]

I read an interesting article today that suggested Nuclear wasn't compatible with solar, roof top solar in particular.

Traditional nuke reactors go full bore 24/7, but in summer daytime when rooftop solar is not only powering houses but pumping juice back into the grid, some states are already forced to dial back their baseline power to stop the grid melting down. That's easy with gas, less easy with coal and difficult with nuke.

one more bit for the pot.

[What'sinaname]

I read an interesting article today that suggested Nuclear wasn't compatible with solar, roof top solar in particular.

Traditional nuke reactors go full bore 24/7, but in summer daytime when rooftop solar is not only powering houses but pumping juice back into the grid, some states are already forced to dial back their baseline power to stop the grid melting down. That's easy with gas, less easy with coal and difficult with nuke.

one more bit for the pot.

No issue. Smart meters can switch off export to the grid. The FIT can also to be made negative, i.e., you charge people for exporting power.

Easy fix.

[Magpietothemax]

Answer to the OP question: should Australia go nuclear?
No, no nation state should try to build nuclear power reactors, while US imperialism is escalating war in Ukraine and Middle East
It is almost a miracle that there has not been a nuclear catastrophe in Ukraine, with a full scale war going on amidst nuclear reactors in Ukraine.
First, get rid of capitalism, and replace it with a world planned socialist economy, then start to think about where and how nuclear reactors should be built.

We're all likely to have suitcase size nuclear reactors powering our houses before your "world planned socialist economy" happens.

Nah, suitcase size nuclear reactors powering houses would only be possible under a world planned economy.
The alternative under capitalism is that houses will be incinerated by nuclear missiles.