Firstly, quillette is trash. You might as well cite Breitbart.What about all the headlines about expensive nuclear and cheap solar and wind? They are largely an illusion resulting from the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the costs of building nuclear plants are up-front, whereas the costs given for solar and wind don’t include the high cost of transmission lines, new dams, or other forms of battery.
So we have three choices. Do nothing and cop CO2. Follow renewable pathway of Germany and continue to see electricity prices increase and CO2 emmissions maintained or increased. Follow a pathway that is tried tested and proven to be the only way to reduce CO2 and save the planet.
Secondly, the point they make is not only wrong but demonstrably so. Countries with a preexisting nuclear industry face lower up front costs and lag time, this isn't true for Australia, where the lead in would be 20-25 years due to a global shortage of specialised workers, including plant operators, nuclear physicists, materials scientists and engineers etc. We need to partially train a domestic workforce. Produce some of the materials and components domestically. Completely change our intelligence and security framework. These are all significant difficulties and costs the public sector will bear.
Next, there are huge long term associated costs with nuclear power, outside of the supply chain for materials. Those exist in terms of waste storage, security and insurance (easily the largest). Likely the state will be on the hook and have to assume liability. Given Australia's very poor history when it comes to management of power infrastructure etc. that's a gigantic risk to assume.
Finally, the second two articles are not agreeing with the bold, not at all. The first suggests that the issue is not a switch to renewables, but that investment in new capacity is not keeping pace with divestment from fossil fuels.
So we either need to build more renewables, or slow the rate of divestment. The ABC article which is specific to Australia hints at similar. That high prices drove new investment in renewable capacity, which is cheaper long term, but the corresponding price drop at the wholesale level as more capacity came online, meant that many early stage or peripheral projects will struggle to make a return.
As many others have stated before, this is a demonstration of market failure. A purely capitalist or market based approach is insufficient to deal with the challenges posed by climate change. I agree. Instead of relying on private investment, a mixture of subsidy for current projects and new investment by the state is required, so we can bring enough new capacity online to both meet peaks in demand and meet our current emissions reduction targets. There also needs to be significant reform of the market regulator. But this honestly is exactly the same as every other shift in generation technology throughout history, since no previous iteration, be it blubber, oil, gas, coal or nuclear has ever been independent of the state and succeeded.
Last edited: