Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Which is cheaper: nuclear or renewables?

By Graham Young - posted Friday, 29 September 2023


CSIRO also has a "Low Assumption" which is $14,586 per kW with an 89 percent capacity factor.

One of the best sources of information on electric power generation is the Energy Information Agency (EIA) in the U.S. which, at the current exchange rate, has a capital cost of $9,525 per kW for small modular reactors (pdf), or just over half what the minister is using, and well-outside CSIRO's range.

The EIA figures are derived from detailed costings, which they list, and include a substantial figure for the construction of powerlines which would not be required if the reactor were replacing an already existing power station, making Australian SMRs potentially even cheaper again.

Advertisement

EIA also expects costs to come down, acknowledging that an SMR built now would be a first-of-a-kind.

Added to that, the minister's capacity factors are all lower than that for conventional nuclear which is around 93 percent. Because of their modular design, the manufacturers of SMRs expect to achieve 96 percent capacity utilisation.

This matters, because the lower capacity factor will be feeding into the CSIRO estimate of the cost of the electricity nuclear reactors will produce.

If you reduce the capital cost by 35 percent, as per the EIA figures, and increase the utilisation factor, it gets cheaper.

Climate groups says a renewable transition will cost $1.5 trillion

Things get worse for the energy minister's argument.

There is an organisation called Net Zero Australia, which is a consortium of researchers from Melbourne, Queensland, and Princeton universities along with consultancy firms NOUS and Evolved Energy Research.

Advertisement

It is also advised by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Climate Council.

So this is a government climate-agenda-friendly organisation with good left-wing cred. Yet it predicts that the capital cost to meet net zero will be $9 trillion by 2050, and $1.5 trillion by the end of the decade.

That $1.5 trillion is essentially to hit the government's 82 percent by 2030 goal, and it excludes the use of nuclear.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

This article was first published by Epoch Times.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

28 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Graham Young is chief editor and the publisher of On Line Opinion. He is executive director of the Australian Institute for Progress, an Australian think tank based in Brisbane, and the publisher of On Line Opinion.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Graham Young

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Graham Young
Article Tools
Comment 28 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy