If we went nuclear a couple of decades ago, maybe it would make sense to continue.

But we're at the point where renewables are cheaper anyway.

Why does the nuclear conversation keep happening? There's no new information being brought to the table, except every fresh costing just shows that renewables have gotten even cheaper since last time.

Nuclear is just steam with radioactivity, why not push for steam with molten salt? That way we can combine our renewables and the same generating principles and everyone is happy.

It won't make a difference. All the experts said Malcolm Turnbull's NBN MTM bullshit didn't make sense either and journos were suppressed for factual reporting. Over a decade later I still am stuck on decaying copper with no upgrade in sight. Takes hours to upload any content and everything dies with a Steam update. Safe Liberal seat, never any consequences. Its all about tribalism, identity politics, and biased media influence. Nobody gives a rats about facts.

Current nuclear policy is a calculated dual pronged attack sourced from the fossil fuel lobby. It isn't genius but then neither are voters.

It is supposed to wedge the climate change vote. Many environmentalists have historically been anti-nuclear technology and that stance makes no sense given the scale of the climate change threat. This presents a responsible adult alternative to the impractical tree huggers. You can save the environment and vote for a party owned by fossil fuel interests. Heaps will fall for it. It is solid emotionally. Unfortunately the economics are complete bullshit because it would be fantastic if nuclear was a real option here.

It also serves to delay alternatives. It directs investment and government support away from renewables which are increasingly just a bit too competitive with stranded fossil fuel assets. You can say you are combating climate change by referring nuclear to committee and planning that takes decades by which time you have retired to your advisory position with a fossil fuel company.

Very transparent, manipulative politics playing the electorate for fools but it will probably work.

The full report (and an executive summary) can be found here: https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost

yeah but thats like a good quality american or french style reactor. But I hear the soviet designs are ALMOST as good, for a 1/4 of the price. And second hand we can have them for a steal, just gotta ago pick them up ourselves.

A user called "VZPrez_putinsucks" listed a couple on Gumtree just gotta go grab 'em from somewhere near pripyat. Apparently one of 'em is already disassembled!

Pfff, but who are you gonna trust? The CSIRO, or Peter Dutton?

Let's just try doing nothing for another 15 years, see if that works.

More coal please! Make the tax payers pay foe the consequences, and the increased radiation and emissions.

Actually, no. Screw the fossil fuel billionaires that can't innovate.

If you read your own article, this is a plug for continued development of gas-fired power plants which are better than coal but still are burning fossil fuels and are heavy polluters.

And if you do the math at worst, you'd be paying a few extra cents for nuclear power than for renewables supplemented by gas fired peaker plants. And those are not carbon capture gas fire beaker plants. Those are just straight up gas plants belching sulfur dioxide directly into the atmosphere...

Large-Scale nuclear would be $0.16 per hour versus gas with CCS at $0.19 per hour. But they're claiming that they can do solar for $0.10 per hour and that if they combine solar and gas it'll be $0.13 per hour

The issue is you can't just have gas without having CCS. If you're planning on fixing the environment so the cost for solar plus gas and CCS comes up to roughly $0.18 per hour per kilowatt

This is all based off of the numbers provided in the article