Comments by "Bob thebomb" (@bobthebomb1596) on "Australia ‘out of step’ with the rest of the world on nuclear energy" video.

@rattusfinkus It is not so much the cost reduction, it is the reduced manufacturing time that is the real bonus. If you can churn out reactor vessels every few days, instead of every year, then you are truly looking at production line economics.
4
@rattusfinkus Costs do not have to match renewables, they have to match renewables plus storage (and all it's associated infrastructure)
3
@tassied12 No, it has not. They tried back in the 1960's, but the project was abandoned. Interest only really revived about a decade ago.
2
@rattusfinkus People claim that, yet the storage is not there to back it up. Lots of ideas for the future, just like arguments against nuclear.
2
@rattusfinkus The storage is too expensive (if you are talking batteries) and untested for other options. Then huge overcapacity. Now a "smarter grid", who pays for all this? Renewables are suddenly not looking so cheap.
2
@rattusfinkus Word salad.
2
Still under development
2
@pwillis1589 What don't?
1
@pwillis1589 Well you require something for when your renewables are offline.
1
@tassied12 Nuclear by itself would indeed require some form of alternate backup or outlet. It is most efficient when run at maximum capacity, which is why France still requires some fossil fuel. The answer is a blend of reactor types and uses. Large GW reactors to cover baseload and smaller reactors that can be switched between power generation and industrial use as required. For example a reactor might produce electricity when demand is high or hydrogen when it is low. The hydrogen being used for steel, ammonia, fertiliser production. Or it might run a desalination plant off-peak. Or it could simply form part of a mixed source generation system. To simply dismiss it, or close existing nuclear while burning fossil fuels is folly.
1