Comment by defrost
6 days ago
> And the math clearly shows advantages of nuclear.
If that's the case and the advantages are so sharp and clearly defined, ...
Then why did Australia's latest CSIRO (National Science body) energy options for the nations future report* clearly state that nuclear was not an economically pragmatic choice compared to renewables?
Any chance "Nuclear V. {X}" is a qualified comparison with edge cases and nuance?
* https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/news/2025/july/2024-25-genc...
Because the nuclear issue in Australia is highly politicized and the report is deeply flawed?
https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/the-flaws-in-c...
https://theconversation.com/known-unknowns-controversy-over-...
I heard Australia is pretty sunny country. If that’s right they can go with solar and be alright. Sweden has less options for sure.
There's a bit of a difference between countries with {nuclear weapons, nuclear power reactors, and nuclear enrichment and breeding programs} and countries without any of that.
The CSIRO costings include the estimated ten year lead time to build expertise and start education in order to have a sound foundation for a nuclear power industry coupled with the long construction lead times anticipated for first build with no priors.
It's of interest that they also "cost" / anticipate a future of SMRs (small modular reactors from third parties) and conclude that'll take a while and will come with some costs.
All in parallel with Australia also kick starting support for nuclear powered submarines in partnership with both the US and the UK in a random never the same twice plan of a vague but alluring (to some) nature.