A new CSIRO report has found that nuclear power is not suitable for Australia, even after considering new parameters, and that large-scale solar and large batteries remain the lowest cost option.
In an official update released on Monday, as the federal opposition prepares to release its costs, Australia’s top science agency warns taxpayers will need deep pockets and a lead time of at least 15 years to develop nuclear power generation.
For the seventh consecutive year, renewables were the lowest cost among all newly built electricity generation technologies.
After a global energy crisis and equipment supply shortage several years ago, large-scale solar and lithium battery storage has weathered the inflationary period as the best of all technologies.
The cost of batteries saw the largest annual reduction, with capital costs falling by a fifth. Rooftop solar costs are also coming down.
Dave Sweeney, nuclear policy analyst at the Australian Conservation Foundation, said four million households with rooftop solar, energy producers and retailers have already voted with their feet and wallets.
“Nuclear power is not suitable for Australia, which has some of the best renewable energy resources on the planet,” he said.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has committed to building two small modular reactors by 2035.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton, who is eyeing sites in seven regional centres, has pledged to publish the coalition’s nuclear costs “this week”.
CSRIO’s GenCost 2024-25 report released for consultation comes as the coalition pushes to end Australia’s nuclear ban and promises to have reactors up and running in just 10 years if elected in 2025.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton, who is eyeing sites in seven regional centres, has pledged to publish the coalition’s nuclear costs “this week”.
But nuclear power generation would be between 1.5 and two times more expensive than utility-scale solar, according to analysis by national science agency CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator.
A one-gigawatt nuclear plant has a price tag of about $9 billion, but the bill would double to $18 billion if it were the first of its kind.
Operators would also need to establish new connection points to safely supply the national electricity grid, experts warn.
Advocates have called for greater recognition of the potential cost advantages of nuclear power’s long operational life compared to solar panels and wind turbines, but CSIRO chief energy economist and GenCost lead author Paul Graham, He said he didn’t find any.
“Similar cost savings can be achieved with shorter-lived technologies, including renewables, even taking into account the need to build them twice,” Mr Graham said.
The nuclear capacity factor, which refers to the duration of a year that a reactor could operate at full capacity, remains unchanged at between 53 and 89 percent, based on verifiable data and consideration of unique electricity generation needs. from Australia.
The report found that the United Arab Emirates’ much-touted example of a relatively fast 12-year nuclear construction timeline would also not be achievable here, because Australians require consultation.
“The facts are set out very clearly in the GenCost report, and our government respects the work of CSIRO scientists and researchers and listens to that advice,” said Science and Industry Minister Ed Husic.
“Peter Dutton’s nuclear fantasy not only threatens to ruin the budget, it also threatens jobs and household electricity bills,” he said.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen said renewables will remain the cheapest new build electricity generation in Australia until 2050, as stand-alone assets and also taking into account the necessary storage, transmission and consolidation.
The report is open to industry, community and policy feedback until February 11.