It might be good for me to write down my current thinking on some elements of the energy transition.

Three ways to decarbonise the grid

There are three broad ways to decarbonise the grid:

1. Batteries: Batteries allow the system to serve demand with energy generated at an earlier point in time. (i.e. energy is generated somewhere that's already connected to demand, and shifted in time)
2. Transmission lines: Transmission lines allow the system to serve demand with energy generated somewhere else in space. (i.e. energy is generated somewhere that's not connected to demand, and therefore happens to coincide with demand in time)
3. Nuclear: Nuclear really makes sense as a zero-carbon substitute for existing coal plants. (i.e. they re-use the existing transmission lines to places with cooling water that were built for coal plants)

The key assumption here is that renewable plants (solar and wind) are well understood projects that will be developed and financed by the private sector wherever there is an opportunity to do so.

Consequences of substitution

Each of the above three are also substitutes for each other. As the price of one of the options comes down, the other two become redundant.

To the extent that these assets needed to earn a return, they start to carry material asset stranding risk.

So, a sustained fall in the cost of batteries increases the likelihood that the any transmission lines or nuclear plant that actually get built turn out to be redundant.

Improving the nuclear discussion

In my mind the promise and peril of nuclear for Australia is between:

1. Globally competitive nuclear: The most interesting development of late is that the South Koreans (KEPCO) built a 4-unit nuclear plant in Abu Dhabi on-time and on-budget.
2. Inability to build nuclear in Anglo jurisdictions: The US and UK have had very bad experiences trying to build nuclear as of late with massive cost overruns and lateness.

Sadly, the current debate (including the CSIRO cost estimates) focus almost entirely on the latter dynamic without any regard for the former.

The long-run threat from the former is that Australian energy-intensive trade exposed industries (e.g. Australian smelters) will have to compete against firms with access to zero-carbon energy available at the globally competitive nuclear price.

Australian policy makers seem hell bent on betting the farm on renewables + transmission + batteries. If that turns out to be less competitive than globally competitive nuclear, then an array of smelters in Australia will turn into permanent subsidy magnets (if they haven't already). A new generation of car manufacturing plants awaits.

The important consequence of thinking in this way is that the benefit of nuclear is actually that it displaces the marginal transmission project. This makes cost overruns from nuclear construction less bad in that they likely displace cost overruns from transmission line constructions.

Community concerns for transmission

Displacing marginal transmission lines is also good, given the growing community backlash against new transmission lines, as apart from any cost overruns. My stronger prediction is that in the next few years, we'll see:

• Bifurcation in the environmental movement: between those that want to build renewable energy generation and infrastructure and those that oppose their construction as impacting "nature" (For an example, note that a massive solar project in WA is being opposed by... the Bob Brown foundation)
• General revulsion at transmission companies and renewable developers in regional Australia: I expect people will view those entities about the same way they view property developers... which is not great
• The repurposing of anti-CSG organisations, rhetoric and tactics against green transition construction: The whole concept of "lock the gate" is already being repurposed from anti-CSG to anti-transmission lines. I expect more of the same

Community concerns for nuclear

That's not to say that Nuclear doesn't have its own challenges with community backlash. Historically, these have been local.

The interesting changes in this landscape are:

• Coal closures: There are now going to be coal-plant sized holes in a variety of communities in Australia. The obvious drop in replacement is a nuclear plant that can literally take the physical space of an old coal plant.
• Gender split: I'll let ABC News do the talking:

But among the broader population, there is a perceptible and fascinating pattern. Men don't mind nuclear – 51 per cent expressed approval in the RedBridge survey – but women really, really don't; only 19 per cent approved, and 40 per cent expressly disapproved.

In summary, the chances of nuclear surviving local opposition hinge on the existence of a sufficient number of male-dominated rural areas with a recently closed coal plant.

Non-issues

There are several non-issues that keep getting talked about, that I expect will eventually wash out of the discourse:

• Nuclear waste: We'll put the new nuclear waste right next to the existing piles of nuclear waste we produce. Australia produces a sizable portion of global nuclear medicine, and we seem to manage the waste just fine. In addition to that, we will also have to deal with nuclear waste from AUKUS submarines.