As well as reducing capital costs, nuclear power for the NEM rather than a 100 per cent renewable system offers other benefits. Significant less land is required and there is less need to upgrade the transmission network. Land use in the USA for nuclear plants averages 3.6 sq kms per GW. So we could expect to use less than 100 sq kms of land rather than the 2,400 to 5,000 sq kms needed for the 100 per cent renewable system.
Also, more changes to the transmission network may be needed for the 100 per cent renewable system than one using nuclear. The costs of these network changes will be added to retail electricity prices.
It seems that the emissions reduction targets by 2050 can be achieved using nuclear power to replace coal at less than half the capital cost of a 100 per cent renewable system without increasing electricity prices.
Advertisement
It seems hardly surprising that countries like China, India, Russia and Korea are building nuclear plants as well as renewable energy systems given the cost and other resource savings.
Australia wants the lowest cost solution to reducing GHG emissions. The DCCEE must request AEMO to perform a further study to consider a scenario including nuclear power.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
40 posts so far.