It takes "less than 10 years" to bring a nuclear power program to the grid: Dr Adi Paterson 

Japan built one in 4.5 years, so, yes it can be done. Average build time is about 7 years. However, this is Australia, with all our safety regs etc it will likely take about 15 years for the 1st one. On average Nuclear is about 3 times the price of coal or solar. The cherry picked countries usual quoted as having price drops from nuclear are usually countries that have no natural fossil fuel resources.

@@Reginaldesq The point isn't that it will take 4.5 y, 5.56 y, 7 y, or 15 y - the point is that those are choices - it CAN be done in under 15 y. Or you can hire the wrong contractor, require the wrong regulations to be met, and permit the wrong lawsuits to come forward. > On average Nuclear is about 3 times the price of coal or solar. Agreed! The price of a NPP is 3x the price of a coal power plant or solar farm. However, the price of electricity from a NPP is less than the price of electricity from said solar farm. Why? In Australia, only about 40% of the retail cost of electricity is from generation. The rest is transmission/distribution/firming/etc. So, even if the cost of NPP generation is a bit more than say solar - it doesn't matter if the price of transmission/distribution/firming/etc doesn't have to be paid! Firming - well that is obvious for nuclear, but uncosted for solar. Transmission - yup, wires in place from the coal plants NPPs would replace - so also done for nuclear, but uncosted for solar. Distribution - yup, grid designed for 1-way flow from centralized plant to distributed consumers, so also done for nuclear, but uncosted to bring grid up to scratch to accommodate the reverse flow. etc, etc

@@factnotfiction5915 Whilst I agree it can be done in under 15 years, there is no way it will be done in under 15 years in Australia. There will be massive arguments just on the transport of materials through states etc. Then safety concerns, well, when I drive through The 15 or so road works to get to work, I note that at many of them the infrastructure workers are outnumbered 5 to 1 by road safety people. These safety costs and regulations have a massive cost in time and $.

@@factnotfiction5915 Nuclear has already lost the race, regardless of any back of the envelope costings. In 15 years time the energy transition to renewable's will be mostly complete. The whole debate is moot. Even if the ban on nuclear is raised (how many election cycles will that take?) and regulations formulated (again, how many election cycles for that to happen) by then our grid will be mostly renewable's. Either way, I don't think nuclear will arrive any time soon.

@@SonderZensei > Nuclear has already lost the race, regardless of any back of the envelope costings. In 15 years time the energy transition to renewable's will be mostly complete. Sadly, you have a better than even chance of being correct. The grid will be mostly VREs + storage, and lots of coal - Australia is likely to continue its high-emission, high-cost trajectory. Your country is likely to be the new poster-child (Germany having to begun to swing the pendulum back) for how not to decarbonize a grid.

I read somewhere recently that the molten salt option is good (Bill Gates currently building one) but a lot more expensive.

Bot

The Barakah reactors he was talking about in the UAE are all big 1+ GW power reactors, not small research reactors.

@@factnotfiction5915yes, 1.4 GW or 1400MW x 4 = 5.6GW Australia uses about 35 GWH’s of energy, so 6 or 7 of these would completely power Australia hypothetically.

@@factnotfiction5915 I read that the Barakah Nuclear Power plant in the UAE is the first and only nuclear power plant in the Arab world. Contracted in 2009, Unit 1 entered commercial operation in 2021. The fourth and final unit started operation in March 2024. In 2023, the UAE stated its' intention to build two more plants. Barakah has four APR-1400 reactors, nameplate capacity 5600 MW. Total cost USD$25B - that's AUD$36B or so. Here's an interesting note: "In December 2017, the rebel Houthis group claimed to have fired a cruise missile in the direction of the Barakah plant, but the Emirati authorities said that no missiles had actually reached the UAE"

@@footbru great to see you doing some research! Here is a comparison of Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, apparently the biggest wind farm in Australia vs Barakah. Stockyard Hill Wind Farm 3 years - construction time Projected cost $900 million AUD, which I'm rounding to 1 billion for ease of computation 530 MW - 177 MW/y construction 1,626 GWh - 542 GWh/y construction 530 MW/1 billion AUD 1,626 GWh/1 billion AUD PROJECTED c.f. 50% ACTUAL c.f. 35% (2023, and 2024 is already 1 month behind 2023) (table indicates no curtailment in 2023 or 2024) -------------- Barakah 13 years - construction time (14 from contract) 36 billion AUD cost (thank you footbru) 5600 MW - 430 MW/y construction (at 85% c.f., global average) 41,726 GWh - 3209 GWh/y construction 155 MW/1 bilion AUD 1159 MW/1 bilion AUD -------------- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockyard_Hill_Wind_Farm en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant -------------- Ok, so slightly more expensive generation with nuclear NOW, we need to realize: * generation is about 40% of the cost in the Australian grid. * nuclear can be sited closer to cities, where the demand is, so need little or no extra transmission. * wind/solar are sited where the wind/sun is, not near demand, so need a LOT of extra transmission. * nuclear does not need much storage/gas, because the steady supply + storage can meet demand load with optimized storage/gas. * wind/solar need a lot of storage/gas for backup, because intermittency is well, intermittent. * (or alternatively EXTRA EXTRA transmission to move juice around the country + storage/gas) We can see nuclear is nearly competitive already, and once you add in all the 'extras' that wind/solar demand ....

@@footbru > Here's an interesting note: "In December 2017, the rebel Houthis group claimed to have fired a cruise missile in the direction of the Barakah plant, but the Emirati authorities said that no missiles had actually reached the UAE" Of course, the only non-state actor with a known terrorist attack - was a Green Party member! - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cha%C3%AFm_Nissim Yup, an eco-terrorist is what NPPs need to look out for, even more than the Russian Army! (vs the Russian Federation, a state actor, which can't decide if they want a 2nd power plant terror attack - the first being against the RE Karkhova Dam, killing 100s of people - or want a safety zone for their troops).

sigh. First, the water 'consumed' by the plant is to cool the waste heat of the primary cooling loops. This cooling water (in the secondary or tertiary cooling loop) doesn't pick up radioactivity. Only water in the reactors (the primary cooling loop) picks up radioactivity. The primary cooling loop is a closed circuit - that water isn't replaced during operations. The water in the primary NEVER mixes with the water in the secondary (some designs having also tertiary water loops) loop. The water in the primary cooling loop is highly pure, and it would destroy the plant to contaminate it with river/lake/seawater. Secondly, tritium is created in the primary cooling loop - special systems are in place to capture this and remove it from the primary loop (because it is mostly gaseous hydrogen vs water). Lastly, Tritiated water is HEAVY water. Regular water is LIGHT water. You have it backwards.

@@factnotfiction5915 well said Sir. People spread so much fear and misinformation on this topic.

@@polarbear7255mostly Albo & Bowen.