Pursuing nuclear energy in Australia would translate to higher power bills for households, according to a think tank study.
Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) data showed that typical Australian households could see electricity bills increase by $665 per year on average if nuclear would be introduced as part of the country’s energy mix, as suggested by the Coalition.
Moreover, IEEFA estimates nuclear energy impact of an average of $972 per year for a four-person household and $1,182 per year for a five-person household.
Modelled on the costs of the Hinkley Point C reactor in the UK, the highest annual increase in typical household electricity bill to recover the cost of nuclear plants would be $1,054 for Victoria, $1,259 for South East Queensland (SEQ), $1,154 for New South Wales (NSW), and $1,064 for South Australia (SA).
The lowest yearly increase would be $353 for Victoria, $311 for SEQ, $312 for NSW, and $260 for SA, using the Czech Republic’s Dukovany plant as the model.
“Australia would likely face even higher large-scale nuclear costs than these recent international examples, due to the country’s limited nuclear capability and the small size of any potential Australian nuclear build-out program,” said Johanna Bowyer, lead analyst for Australian electricity at IEEFA.
Other models used are Finland’s Olkiluoto Unit 3; France’s Flamanville Unit 3; and the United States’ Vogtle Units 3 and 4 and NuScale SMR.
“Our analysis suggests household power bills would need to rise significantly for nuclear power plants to become a commercially viable investment in the absence of substantial, taxpayer-funded government subsidies,” said Bower.
“In IEEFA’s opinion, any plan to introduce nuclear energy in Australia—such as that proposed by the Coalition—should be examined thoroughly, with particular focus on the potential impact on electricity system costs and household bills, and with detailed analysis of alternative technologies such as renewables and firming.”
The Clean Energy Council expressed support to the IEEFA’s report, and urged the government to prioritise renewables instead.
“Households cannot afford to wait decades for a technology that is ultimately a poor fit for Australia. Renewables paired with energy storage is the lowest-cost form of electricity supply, and it’s available now,” said Con Hristodoulidis, Co-chief Policy and Impact Officer at the Clean Energy Council.
Critic Discredits IEEFA’s Models
Meanwhile, the Centre for Independent Studies disagreed with the IEEFA’s findings, arguing that the latter used the least-successful nuclear energy projects as models.“Almost all of these projects were first-of-a-kind, or at least first of their kind in their country, and suffered from inexperienced construction and management consortia,” said Aidan Morrison, Director of Energy Research at the Centre for Independent Studies.
“On top of this, they have all committed the cardinal sin of nuclear construction: stopping after just building one or two. If you want cheap nuclear, you need to pick a proven design, and build a fleet.”
