THE SQUEEZE IS ON, page-2454

Not fussed about Australian slow changes as all of my shares in uranium power cycle are secure in my view.
the Gen cost report has again tried to paint nuclear energy as expensive without considering all costs. Assumptions without bias are not included again.

As many experts have highlightehd, this newest edition of the Gencost report despite revisions still contains serious limitations. This includes that the authors fail to consider the full system cost of renewables and incorrectly assume the economic life of a nuclear power plant is the same as a solar or wind farm when a nuclear reactor can last for 60-80 years.Yet, despite these issues, decision makers have chosen to use the report to justify their claims that nuclear doesn’t stack up in contradiction with the rest of the world which has committed to tripling nuclear power generation by 2050. Why would more than 50 countries be looking to introduce nuclear power if it didn’t stack up?Nuclear for Australia expert Tony Irwin was interviewed on ABC Newcastle on Wednesday providing a comprehensive response to the Gencost report:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y_J1gSeWomA

I would like to see CSIRO include South Korea build cost rather than the one off vogal build only which is a great study which every one leaned from.