Nuclear generation on the scale being promoted by proponents—including the federal opposition—is unprecedented, but there are “no known technical barriers” to it going ahead, Australia’s national science agency says.
The GenCost report is prepared each year by CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) in collaboration with the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) and covers the cost of building future electricity generation, storage, and hydrogen production.
In the latest report, released May 22, it examined large-scale nuclear generation for the first time because of increased stakeholder interest in the technology.
The latest consultation attracted more than 40 written submissions and more than 200 industry webinar participants.
It’s conclusion for nuclear costs remain unchanged from the previous report. The agency says nuclear is more expensive than renewables, and developing sites capable of producing energy would take at least 15 years.
Wind Costs up, Solar Down
Meanwhile, cost of both onshore and offshore wind power has been revised upwards across the next decade, as it has been slower to recover from global inflationary pressures than other power technologies.
Despite this, CSIRO says it will remain the lowest-cost generation to build through to at least 2050, even when the expenses associated with additional storage and transmission are taken into account.
Onshore wind costs went up by 8 percent, while large-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) fell by the same proportion, and gas turbine costs increased by up to 14 percent.
GenCost based its large-scale nuclear cost estimations on South Korea’s successful nuclear program and adjusted for the differing costs of new coal generation in each country.
CSIRO’s Chief Energy Economist and GenCost lead author, Paul Graham, said this “provides a logical, transparent, and policy-neutral method of costing a potential deployment scenario in Australia.”
It adds the caveat that “achieving the reported nuclear costs depends on Australia committing to a continuous building program like South Korea’s” and warns that initial units are likely to incur higher costs, with initial builds potentially twice the price of later construction. Although, this has not been included in the cost estimates for nuclear or other new electricity technologies in the report.
Wind, solar PV, and batteries had experienced a decade of cost reductions prior to the pandemic, while traditional generation costs have remained flat.
The report revised its approach to estimating solar thermal power generation costs, with the new data indicating it is competitive with nuclear and other non-renewables that combine carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. However, it has not been included in the final GenCost report “due to [its] project-specific nature.”
“The feedback provided by the energy community each year is invaluable, given that cost forecasts of future electricity generation, storage and hydrogen production can fluctuate significantly and no single technology can achieve our transition to net zero,” CSIRO’s Director of Energy, Dietmar Tourbier, said.
But regardless of whether submitters advocated for a particular form of generation, the organisation’s considerations “are policy and technology neutral,” Mr. Tourbier said.
“Last week, politicians were claiming nuclear energy was six times the cost of renewables, based on figures recycled from the GenCost draft. This week, it’s only two times that cost. With transmission projects and Snowy 2.0 blowing out, the true cost of renewables is yet to become clear,” CIS energy research director Aidan Morrison said.
“The reality that this report still obscures is that coal power is definitely the lowest cost overall,” he claimed.
“Decarbonising the grid will cost us something, and Australians deserve a clear picture of how much that will be, which GenCost still doesn’t provide.”
