Western Australia and Queensland have a good deal of Monazite sands that one can extract Thorium from. This would greatly reduce the need for more complex safety and disposal regulations necessary with larger fission reactors.
There is a valley of death between something that works in a research lab and something that world in the real world.
A research reactor does not have to produce electricity at anything close to an economic price, just as the fusion reactors.
A Thorium reactor might work, and might be built in some future, and it might even not come super over budget or over time like more or less every fission reactor we've built. In the meantime, wind/solar/batteries are being continuously delivered on time, on budget, are getting continuously cheaper, and are available today.
* What is the figure on the magnitude of power Australia needs?
* How many 2MW molten salt reactors like the built and being tested TMSR-LF1 reactor would Australia need to meet that figure? What would be the cost and time to construct that number in parallel?
* There's a 10MW version planned - what's the cost | timeline | number for those?
* Eventually there might be a ~ 300MW version built and tested .. what's the timeline on that?
The CSIRO GenCost report seems to think the costs of batteries + renewables will be far less overall and more immediately available in Australia as we scale them out .. rather than waiting decades and still having to fudge about in the meantime .. thoughts?
Australia's electricity consumption in 2021 was approximately 265 TWh (terawatt-hours) per year. Napkin math works out to:
Annual energy production of one 2 MW reactor: 2 MW * 8760 hours/year = 17,520 MWh/year = 17.52 GWh/year.
Number of reactors required: 265,000 GWh/year / 17.52 GWh/year = ~15,130 reactors.
This is of course a silly computation for scaling a research grade molten salt reactor. 300+ MW reactors knocks things down to a few dozen.
Now, how about if we apply this same requirement to solar power? How many solar panels will we need to get the same power gain?
Total energy required: 265,000 GWh/year = 265,000,000 MWh/year = 265,000,000,000 kWh/year.
Number of panels needed: 265,000,000,000 kWh/year / 584 kWh/year per panel ˜ 453,767,123 panels.
I know Chinese panels are cheap and all, but the notion that Australia will maintain a network of 450M panels is silly, and this is just to replace what we have now, not what is needed in the future.
That's an unsourced and unbacked assertion, not at argument.
And I have seen no convincing argument for why this would be even remotely true.
As a counter argument, consider how poorly such predictions have done in the past (i.e. early 2023) [0]. For over a decade the IEA has been saying the same thing, and for every year in that decade they have been wrong, comically wrong.
So if you want to make your argument, you'll have to explain why the literally exponential curve is going to not just flatten, but go to zero.
Technological moonshots are great. Modular reactors, renewable energy grids with large scale storage, are all very exciting.
But with the climate emergency and its potential tipping points being a decade away, we should immediately fix the problem with existing technologies.
Classical nuclear reactors are great, scalable, proven and clean. They just have bad public image from PR disasters of the past. We don't have time for fancy rebrands like SMRs, MSRs, fusion, and other fancy stuff that could take half a century
Renewables with grid scale storage are not a moonshot. It exists today in many places around the world, and has for years. Nuclear takes way too long and is too expensive. Wind and solar with storage are faster, cheaper and safer.
"Increases in electricity bills have been less sharp in France thanks to government subsidies, at 4% in 2022 and 15% this year – at a projected cost of €45 billion in 2023."
You mention Germany, not me. Don't add random topics if you are not able to discuss the topic you've chosen.
Industries are leaving Germany because of the electricity bills you tried to defend. Nearby countries don't want to connect to Germany because of unstable electricity bills that can affect citizens (Sweeden). Stay on topic.
> Nearby countries don't want to connect to Germany because of unstable electricity bills that can affect citizens (Sweeden).
What are "unstable electricity bills" ? Changing market prices are the reality in many markets. The European reality is clear: more connection between local energy markets creates a larger EU market and this allows to trade electricity based on demand and supply in a very large market.
Germany already exchanges electricity with Sweden via Denmark. Do you have other examples? Germany directly exchanges electricity with lots of other countries already.
Renewable energy from Wind and Solar is growing in many places in Europe. That's not a special German thing, it's just that Germany started earlier.
"EU Member States need to massively ramp up their renewable power capacity in the coming years. This increase in renewables from variable sources, such as wind and solar, will also increase the need for ‘flexibility’ in the EU electricity system."
"The share of renewables in Europe is expected to keep growing. However, meeting the new target of 42.5% for 2030 will demand more than doubling the rates of renewables deployment seen over the past decade, and requires a deep transformation of the European energy system."
What you think is a German problem, is a reality and a trend in Europe.
A deep transition to renewable energy is also world-wide the only viable way to a cleaner electricity production.
Sweden could be in a good position, since it and surrounding countries have lots of capacity for wind generated electricity and hydro based electricity generation/storage.
Today Germany a peak of 2300€/MWh at 6-7, and a negative of -0.05€ at 12-13.
> Changing market prices are the reality in many markets.
For a market to be competitive, it must also be predictable. If energy costs vary drastically—€1000/MWh one day and €0 the next—it poses a severe challenge for companies. Such unpredictability discourages investment and may cause industries to relocate.
Imagine an energy-intensive company unable to operate profitably due to volatile energy prices. Paid employees ready to work might have to wait because high energy costs could lead to financial losses.
> The European reality is clear: more connection between local energy markets creates a larger EU market and this allows to trade electricity based on demand and supply in a very large market.
However, this interconnectedness does not solve the problem. If Germany's electricity prices soar, they might rely on cheaper Swedish electricity, potentially saturating Sweden's supply and raising costs for Swedes. This scenario recently played out, prompting the Swedish government to halt plans for a new power cable to Germany.
The consequences are counterproductive. Germany's unstable energy market negatively impacts its citizens and neighboring countries. Rather than increased connectivity, the opposite approach might be more beneficial.
> "EU Member States need to massively ramp up their renewable power capacity in the coming years. This increase in renewables from variable sources, such as wind and solar, will also increase the need for ‘flexibility’ in the EU electricity system."
These issues have persisted in Germany for a decade and continue to worsen. The need for "flexibility" in the EU electricity system seems more like wishful thinking than a practical solution.
> Renewable energy from Wind and Solar is growing in many places in Europe. That's not a special German thing, it's just that Germany started earlier.
This point seems unrelated to the discussion at hand. Are you being paid to promote renewables? Many parts of your argument sound like poorly crafted commercials.
> What you think is a German problem, is a reality and a trend in Europe.
Yes, it's a problem closely linked to renewables, and other countries are following suit.
> A deep transition to renewable energy is also world-wide the only viable way to a cleaner electricity production.
While the transition to renewable energy is essential, it is not without its challenges. Recognizing the limitations of renewables is crucial for anyone genuinely committed to this goal.
> Sweden could be in a good position, since it and surrounding countries have lots of capacity for wind generated electricity and hydro based electricity generation/storage.
The article is clear. Sweden's Energy Minister Ebba Busch stated, "We can't connect southern Sweden, which has a large deficit in electricity production, with Germany, where the electricity market today does not function efficiently. That would risk leading to higher prices and a more unstable electricity market in Sweden."
That's a price, not a bill. It's an auction. Electricity is traded there.
>> Changing market prices are the reality in many markets.
> For a market to be competitive, it must also be predictable. If energy costs vary drastically—€1000/MWh one day and €0 the next—it poses a severe challenge for companies. Such unpredictability discourages investment and may cause industries to relocate.
That's nonsense. "Markets" don't need to be predictable. There are lots of markets, where predictability plays a minor role. There are also renewable energy forecasts, just like there are weather forecasts.
In the future we will have much much more electricity capacity from renewable. Lots of business will then take advantage of that.
That's a completely new market.
> Imagine an energy-intensive company unable to operate profitably due to volatile energy prices.
energy intensive companies have long-term electricity contracts. Additionally many of these companies can steer their demand.
> Paid employees ready to work might have to wait because high energy costs could lead to financial losses.
What?
>However, this interconnectedness does not solve the problem. If Germany's electricity prices soar, they might rely on cheaper Swedish electricity, potentially saturating Sweden's supply and raising costs for Swedes. This scenario recently played out, prompting the Swedish government to halt plans for a new power cable to Germany.
That's all yesterday thinking. Germany is not only connected to Sweden (which it is indirectly) and countries/companies can regulate the export of electricity.
> The consequences are counterproductive. Germany's unstable energy market negatively impacts its citizens and neighboring countries. Rather than increased connectivity, the opposite approach might be more beneficial.
Sure not. It's the fear of modern technology.
> While the transition to renewable energy is essential, it is not without its challenges. Recognizing the limitations of renewables is crucial for anyone genuinely committed to this goal.
Sure there are challenges. Challenges are everywhere. We here in Europe, for example have the challenge to get rid of the energy dependence from Russia, which has served Europe (and Germany) with gas, oil and nuclear (fuel production, technology, fuel reprocessing, ...). Russia has used its energy industry to blackmail Europe. That's a challenge.
But you assume "limitations" of renewable energy which simply are not there or only temporary. For a lot of these "limitations" we will see solutions, like large interconnected grids, demand steering, usage of over-capacity in fuel production, large batteries, ...
We have seen this "limitation" thinking decades ago, when the German electricity industry (mostly coal and nuclear) claimed that renewable energy could only provide a few percent energy share. The grid would be unstable. The reality: the German grid is still super reliable and we approach 60% electricity from renewable energy - in a country with very little hydro capacity.
> Are you being paid to promote renewables? Many parts of your argument sound like poorly crafted commercials.
I had the same impression of your (in my opinion naive) nuclear talking points.
Hackernews (ran by a venture capital firm Y Combinator) is best for people who can extrapolate trends into the future. Energy policy is a field of long term industry trends. Changes can take decades. Currently we see that nuclear changes very slowly if at all, renewable still accelerates.
Don't bet the future on a stagnating energy technology.
> That's a price, not a bill. It's an auction. Electricity is traded there.
And how do you think the cost in the bill is determined?
> That's nonsense. "Markets" don't need to be predictable. There are lots of markets, where predictability plays a minor role. There are also renewable energy forecasts, just like there are weather forecasts.
Knowing that there won't be much sun tomorrow doesn't cause prices to drop. It simply confirms that they will be very high.
Which is exactly what the day-ahead market does.
> In the future we will have much much more electricity capacity from renewable. Lots of business will then take advantage of that.
We live in the present, not in the future. And for it not to be a problem in the future, someone in the present has to think about it. It's a problem in the present.
You're basically putting this problem off indefinitely, you don't care that it exists, you don't care to solve it.
> That's a completely new market.
Which does not exist outside of your dreams...
> energy intensive companies have long-term electricity contracts. Additionally many of these companies can steer their demand.
Not always.
That said, someone must must pay anyways. And if you have a fixed rate and the variable rate goes up, somebody loses a lot of money. It happens like that in every market.
It also happened post-covid with fixed-rate mortgages.
> That's all yesterday thinking. Germany is not only connected to Sweden (which it is indirectly) and countries/companies can regulate the export of electricity.
All beautiful. The fact remains that the Swedes don't want more connections because of German network problems. That they have past connections says nothing about the current and future state of Germany. And the statements speak for themselves, it's a disaster.
> Sure not. It's the fear of modern technology.
Empty words.
> But you assume "limitations" of renewable energy which simply are not there or only temporary. For a lot of these "limitations" we will see solutions, like large interconnected grids, demand steering, usage of over-capacity in fuel production, large batteries, ...
A lot of whishful thinking. You hope in solutions. But now we have problems, its a fact.
> We have seen this "limitation" thinking decades ago, when the German electricity industry (mostly coal and nuclear) claimed that renewable energy could only provide a few percent energy share. The grid would be unstable. The reality: the German grid is still super reliable and we approach 60% electricity from renewable energy - in a country with very little hydro capacity.
There is no "hidden true cost", lifecycle cost analysis has been done including research and public financing. The data is public, everyone can check it.
"
In particular, a looming overhaul of the way nuclear power prices are regulated in France has created fractures as EDF seeks higher prices to bring in much-needed capital, while the state wants to contain energy costs for households and businesses as much as possible, the people added.
“For Rémont, electricity prices need to be sufficiently high so that the group can invest, and the government needs to have prices that are acceptable to consumers,” another person said.
At its core, the debate around EDF is an existential one — whether its executives can and should run the group as a normal company despite it being state-owned.
"
Sorry, I'm really not interested in a debate built on selective quotes and paywalled articles. As I said, the cost analysis is public. It was even translated [1].
If you're interested in reading a 432-page long cost analysis, have fun.
The amount of storage is set to increase substantially this year.
"Developers plan to add 6,813 MW of battery power storage capacity in CAISO's domain this year, dominated by four-hour lithium-ion resources, roughly double their additions in 2023"
Yes, my point is load in April, per the blog numbers, seems to be 15-20 GW down compared to yearly peak. Battery buildup is of course going to be more impressive when load is low.
The first graph of the article shows batteries peak 2.5 G higher than 2023, which is far from explaining the flattening of gas use. The "battery shifting load" and "Load not including battery charging" graphs tend to show that the big difference from 2023 is to ease the morning ramp down, which is good progress, but much more incremental than what's advertised by the graph you're showing.
Solar replacing natural gas is far more impressive in April than it is in the summer. Summer with its long days has a lot more solar than cloudy April.
This is very exciting, California might be the first to pull it off at scale in the future.
However it's still 9% of the current MW capacity. We'll see how it ages and it costs in the long run. Most of the pilotable energy sources in the state remain nuke, hydro & fossil fuels.
This is very exciting, California might be the first to pull it off at scale in the future.
However it's still 9% of the current MW capacity. We'll see how it ages and it costs in the long run. Most of the pilotable energy sources in the state remain nuke, hydro & fossil fuels. Safety issues, notably fires, notably in Australia's grid are still an issue.
Why did you move the goalposts? Pumped-storage like Ludington are the most economical long term storage solution, they've existed for decades and unlike hydro generation, are not limited by suitable locations.
It's great, and I'm aware of it. We need more of it where possible.
It's highly dependent on the kind of landscape you have though. Great for places like Switzerland, much harder to find a suitable place for it in Texas or Australia.
The more important number is "about one hundred times greater than required to support a 100% global renewable electricity system" which does sound pretty good.
Are these locations close to the areas where the energy is needed? Australia is big, and transmission lines, not cheap.
(By the same token, Sahara might be an ideal place to locate large solar power installations to feed the entire Eurasia, were it not for the transmission.)
I don't think the tipping points are a decade away. I think we've already surpassed them. In the sense that "hey let's just stop buying all oil today" is not feasible.
In other words there's no way we can ramp down fast enough to prevent another degree of warming. We are already past the point of no (practical) return.
Obviously that doesn't mean we give up, 2 degs of warming is better than 3. But we're long (long) past the point where we can pretend we can "avoid the oncoming train".
So get used to more extreme events every year. Hotter hot, wetter wet, drier dry. More energy in the atmosphere means more energetic weather.
That's true. All of this is driven by greed. "Clinate denial " is predicated on the basis of "hey, you tell me the earth is going bad in a few decades, but to admit that costs me money and lifestyle now".
If we can pretend it's not happening then we don't need to change. And those making the most money from the harmful behaviors are leading the charge.
> More energy in the atmosphere means more energetic weather.
Although that's tautologically true, please be aware that "accumulated cyclone energy" (i.e. storm energy) is a tracked metric and hasn't moved since records began 50 years ago:
In practice the climate is quite complex and datasets often don't neatly fall into line with each other. If you want to argue that there's a problem with energetic weather some other metric would be needed. Watch out though for economic indexes that don't control for population growth or apply deflators correctly.
Indeed.. temperature differences are what drives weather. If the planet is uniformly warmer, does that affect temperature differences? It might even make the differences lesser if the warming effect is stronger in cool places or at night. Which is the case, as I understand it.
Yes, it's a gross simplification. But it serves a purpose.
It's not just a question of major storms though. It's a question of general day to day weather.
Hot months are hotter, wet months are wetter, cold spells are colder. Every year is bringing "...est on record" everywhere you look.
Everyday weather is like a pendulum- and the pendulum is swinging just a bit further with each swing.
But you don't need to get bogged down by the science. You don't even need the numbers. If you're prepared to acknowledge it at all, it's evident simply by looking outside.
Respectfully, it wasn't a gross simplification. The underlying claims in both directions are already simple. It was just incorrect.
But it serves a purpose.
Purpose? What purpose? Honestly, this stuff really gets my goat. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but around a quarter of the population doesn't agree that climate changes are driven primarily by humans, and over time the proportion of people saying climate change is a serious problem have gone down, not up. This is despite absolutely saturation level messaging by every part society that's allowed to speak.
Despite being confined to obscure blogs climate skeptics appear to be winning, and they're doing it through a simple formula:
1. Take a claim made by journalists, politicians, academics etc.
2. Present documentary evidence that the claim is wrong. Sometimes a graph from a government website, sometimes data from a paper, sometimes historical evidence or data they collected themselves.
3. Argue the mismatch isn't a mistake but rather deliberate lies told in aid of a specific social agenda, which has nothing to do with science and which the claimants regard as more important than scientific truth.
So when you say the weather is getting more energetic, I show you it's not getting more energetic, and you accept that you were wrong but say "It serves a purpose", what you're doing is illustrating and to some extent confirming all the worst conspiracy theories of the skeptics. What you're doing is saying, it's OK to say untrue things about the climate if it's in aid of a higher purpose.
> Every year is bringing "...est on record" everywhere you look.
Given that you just made a claim about storm energy that isn't correct, presumably found in those places that you look, one should consider the possibility that claims we hear about records might also be gross oversimplifications told to serve a purpose.
To be fair, I didn't say anything about storm energy, I made a comment about energetic weather. In the sense that the weather is "more". Hotter hots, colder colds and so on. So more energetic in the "less placid" sense.
And sure, lots of US folks are happy to deny climate change because it suits them. The majority of climate deniers are not doing it because they disbelieve the science, they deny it because their life-style would need to change if they accepted it was real.
In other words they rationalise backwards - start with the outcome they desire (I'm not to blame, I don't need to change) and then find a path to that outcome.
Or to put it another way, you cannot rationally argue a person out of a place they didn't rationally get into.
Which goes back to my original point. I don't think most (rich nations) people want to change, and so we're well past the point of no return. The earth will be a different place for my children and grandchildren. The time for convincing people that this is a problem has come and gone.
I agree with your statement, but as a broader statement about "fixing the problem", I think that we also shouldn't discount the importance of political capital as a resource that is necessary for solving the problem.
At a local level, where carbon emissions actually happen, there's a wide variety of support for varying technologies depending on where you're at. Sometimes this is an existing technology and sometimes it might be a new technology. Solar wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for moonshot projects just a few decades ago.
I believe Admiral Rickover made a very similar case with his "Paper Reactor" memo back in 1953[1]:"The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. He has not had to assume any real responsibility in connection with his projects. He is free to luxuriate in elegant ideas, the practical shortcomings of which can be relegated to the category of “mere technical details.” The practical-reactor designer must live with these same technical details. Although recalcitrant and awkward, they must be solved and cannot be put off until tomorrow. Their solutions require man power, time, and money."
Maybe quoting the person which had to be forcefully retired to stop them from holding back development of nuclear navy (not to mention his tendency to settle political scores by holding back certifications) after 1970 isn't the best in given context.
"Since they are innocently unaware of the real but hidden difficulties of their plans, they speak with great facility and confidence. Those involved with practical reactors, humbled by their experiences, speak less and worry more."
Replace 'reactors' with any sufficiently complex system and you'll find this resonates incredibly strongly even today.
My dad worked on the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes. Specifically the frame that held them to the rocket. It had to be light, strong, flexible enough to isolate them from the rockets vibration, and not resonate either.
Design, fabrication, and testing took 18 months. And he wasn't the only engineer working on it.
It can't be done, until someone does it. There is nothing from a physics standpoint preventing modular reactors. Many advanced large US Navy vessels have reactors.
While I agree with the sentiment, comparing to a navy ship reactor isn't useful, they don't have to turn a profit, nuclear is used to make the ships less dependent on refuelling.
If it isn't cheaper than batteries and solar in Australia, it is dead on arrival. As of this comment, Australia has 18.4GW of coal fired generation capacity and 20GW of solar [1]. Even if you assume worst case capacity factor, the last of their fossil generation will be gone before any nuclear sees first kwh to grid (global solar deployment is on track for ~660GW this year [2]). Germany is routinely pumping out 40GW of solar [3] (with ~81GW of total capacity), and Australia has far more solar potential [4].
[4] https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/oth... ("Australia receives an average of 58 million PJ of solar radiation per year, approximately 10 000 times larger than its total energy consumption. However, Australia's current use of solar energy is low with solar energy accounting for only about 0.1 per cent of Australia's total primary energy consumption.")
"viable" probably means some else then just "technically possible".
I would also see as requirements: It must be cost effective, it must be scalable in several dimensions: fast to plan and approve, fast to build, able to be build in massive numbers, able to be financed in large numbers, able to be operated in large numbers, able to cool in large numbers, able to operate in a secure environment, ...
I meant heatsink as in the water itself - not the reactor hull.
As far as I know, pumps are used to exchange seawater directly with the surrounding environment - hoses are used to this effect in dry dock.
I am told there are proprietary secrets used to control the electrolysis output gas mixture and coolant temp mixture so as to not increase detectability.
It’s the economics - larger reactors produce relatively expensive power (per megawatt-hour), and that’s while still benefiting from economies of scale from their large size (as all thermal power tends to).
SMRs are technically fairly straightforward, but they need to be able to built and operated cheaply enough to produce power cheaper than existing large nuclear plants to be economically viable, given the price of competing power sources in most grids. And that’s not on the horizon at this point. Everything points to them producing more expensive power.
Engineering with Rosie is a great channel with insights into the energy system in Australia - she worked in Denmark too and has lots of interesting things to say:
Roughly - why would you spend a dollar on a long term return risky nuclear venture when you could spend it on something certain and get a result tomorrow? Doubly so in a hot sunny country like Australia.
I very much hope it won’t matter and he proves unelectable.
Look at his record - doctors voted him the “worst Minister for Health in Australian History” when he was in that position. Later in Home Affairs as minister there was massive grift (massive, corrupt looking contracts to dodgy companies to run detention camps) and internal staff surveys in the public service consistently rated his department as the worst managed across the whole Government…
He does not has any record of good policy or any kind of effective executive management.
Probably because you consider redundancy and emergency preparation important, sunlight is not guaranteed in event of supervolcanic eruption, asteroid impact, nuclear winter, and other similar events.
Cynically I think the intent of this push is to stimy the lefts push for Solar / Wind without evoking 'climate change denialism.' I.e. the liberals are acquiescing on the point of need for green energy and proposing this as an alternative solution. That nuclear is unpopular with the left helps stake the ground for the boarder culture war.
The problem is that it's likely that tariffs will be raised on cheap solar imports from China so either way, nuclear or solar, there will be no cheap electricity for Australians.
In my view, either a corrupt nuclear firm syphons off a bunch of public money, or another bunch of money will be wasted trying to get Australian solar competitive with China. Sadly not wasting a bunch of money is not an option. That's the problem with the government funded ventures, trying and failing makes more money than trying and succeeding.
I think modular reactors certainly could be build with some investment and in a different world it might make sense to build lots of them (and if possible underground, to contain the worst in the worst case).
But the required security alone, to prevent the spread of material to all kind of terrorist organisations or rougue states, will likely not make them a economical alternative.
Australia can deal with all energy needs with wind/solar. In 5 years Perovskite/Silicon solar cells will get to 35% efficiency, perhaps more, and Australia has huge useable areas with the needed insolation as well as temperate weather. lithium cells are not economic or suitable - they need to build Vanadium Flow cells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery.
Flow cells are made with 2 liquid vats - one for charged liquid and the other for discharged. Operational parameters are vat size(how many megawatt-hours stored) and the charge/discharge cell between the vats which determines the rate at which used fluid is charged and charge fluid is discharged to the grid. Commercial Vanadium redox cells are made now and are being ramped up steadily.
So you need vat space for the time you need to store the power, and you need enough charge/discharge cells for the max rate of charge/discharge. And, of course, enough wind/solar to achieve load needed. Land is cheap in Australia and large cheap fields of vats and the needed conversion cells can be laid out as solar cell field first story - it is just a large building, and in that climate, could even be built outside with the right cladding, all piping can be surface runs as nothing in Australia will damage them, but I suppose fences against 'roos/rabbits/snakes ight come in handy.
Stats on operational Vanadium cells are out there, as this search shows.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Vanadium+redox+cells&rlz=1C1...
Regardless of your stance on nuclear energy, can we all agree that articles of the form of "Person X of Authority Y dismisses Z as unviable" is a non-headline? It's basically "Person of vaguely adjacent qualification has opinion". I see it everywhere and it's the "cures cancer (in vitro)" of engineering articles.
The background here is that Peter Dutton, the conservative opposition leader in Australia, has recently announced a plan to switch to nuclear energy instead of renewables. However it isn't a serious policy. Instead it's just political cover to kick the climate change can down the road and allow the existing highly subsidised fossil fuel industry in Australia to continue operating for a few more decades.
reply