> basically ruled out nuclear as a sensible option The report's conclusion has been drawn from a single comparison (USC coal in South Korea/Australia then scal

> basically ruled out nuclear as a sensible option The report's conclusion has been drawn from a single comparison (USC coal in South Korea/Australia then scaling the APR-1400 cost), and they don't really show their workings. A factor of 2.8 is asserted/accepted, which does make me query the competitiveness of the Australian economy. A counterfactual would be to compare using Japan. The USC coal plant in Japan and Australia cost about the same, so nuclear would be 3963 USD/kWe (2018); exchanging for AUD (1.35 AUD/USD) and allowing for perhaps 20% inflation over that time we get 6350 AUD/kWe . Scaling up to a 1400MW plant decreases the capacity cost by 10% to 5715 AUD/kWe ( (1377MW/1152MW)^0.6 = 0.9 ). So I think there is certainly a weakness in the report's methodology; a national level decision should probably not be based on a single comparison. Getting quotes from a few builders (KEPCO, Westinghouse/Bechtel) might be a good idea before remodelling the energy system.