Brooks also seems incapable of working out how long it takes to build nukes, how many would be needed to mitigate climate collapse, how little uranium is available, how big the risks are, and many other factors.

Brooks is simply a blind, techno-utopian ideologue.

I wonder if Barry Brook knows about that?! It seems like Mr Brook ignores everything and anything that suggests nuclear is a very bad idea.

1. Because it is too expensive
2. Because it takes too long to install
3. Because it brings unique safety and dangerous waste problems to the mix.

Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, hydro and biomass/gas are cheaper, faster and safer.

The lowest estimate I found was from an industry insider who claimed $0.12/kWh but did not release the details of what was and was not included in his numbers.

Past that I found estimates ranging from $0.15/kWh to as much as $0.35/kWh. That’s without accounting for the value of subsidies provided in form of loan guarantee and liability limits.

After Fukushima the cost is almost certainly higher. More safety requirements, more inspections, more time checking to look for problems.

Wind in the US is now about 6 cents and expected to fall ~20%. Solar is now down to 15 cents and expected to fall fast. Nuclear cannot compete when the wind is blowing or the sun shinning. That means that nuclear would have to charge even more in the non-wind/sun hours to make up for their losses.

Storage at 15 cents would kill nuclear. Aquion is going into production with grid storage batteries with a prediction of 3 cents per kWh.

This appears to come from a book he co-wrote with Ian Lowe who argues the opposite case. Here are Lowe’s main arguments.

“In summary, the 7 reasons why we should say NO to nuclear power are:
1. Because it is not a fast enough response to climate change
2. Because it is too expensive
3. Because the need for baseload electricity is exaggerated
4. Because the problem of waste remains unresolved
5. Because it will increase the risk of nuclear war
6. Because there are safety concerns
7. Because there are better alternatives”

Who would be willing to bet against cheap solar in the next ten years? How about cheap grid scale battery storage?

Wind and solar at a nickle, storage for 3 cents more. New nuclear at 15+ cents per kWh isn’t going to be a player.

Remember, new nuclear has to sell its power for 15+ cents 24/365. You can’t turn off the plant and especially you can’t turn off the loan payment.

Even if Australians listen to what Barry Brook says, it will take two decades before the first small amount of low carbon nuclear energy gets produced in Australia. It would be nice if Brook could at least get out of the way for these two decades while other people develop renewable and actually do something about this “global warming” problem. It would be even nicer if he started doing something useful himself in those decades and actually help get something substantial done.