Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12...xpensive-csiro-gencost-report-draft/103253678

This is Australia so numbers might be different elsewhere since we only have one reactor so would need to recruit the labor force even before we start but I thought this was an interesting report

 

Sorry, the entire study is flawed.

If you actually look at it, the only nuclear power it studied is the SMR or "Small Modular Reactor". And those are very small, producing a relatively small amount of power. And they are so new (only 16 years old) that very few have even been built.

The entire study is really propaganda when they do not include the much more efficient nuclear reactor processes like BWR (Boiling Water Reactors), PWR (Pressure Water Reactors), and other technologies which produce many times more power at a much lower cost than an SMR.

At the absolute maximum, it is expected that an SMR can potentially produce up to 1 GW of power. That is a fraction of say a BWR, which can produce in excess of 5 GW.

So no, that report is incorrect because it is excluding actual nuclear designs that are in use and have been used for over 5 decades, and only considering a brand new one that is not even in commercial use yet.

You're welcome for pointing out that this report is largely worthless, and does not show that nuclear is more expensive than renewables.

 

Feel free to give feedback to CSIRO I mean they are only one of our premier science organisations but I am sure they know less than you/ sarcasm

Don’t forget the point I made earlier - we don’t have an expert workforce to draw on when setting up a big power plant

 

Oh! And if you actually read the entire link/s

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Energy-data-modelling/GenCost

 

That is absolutely beside the point. When the only "nuclear" they even look at is a low power and still experimental program and do not even consider decades old systems that have been in operation for decades, it is absolutely pointless to make that kind of claim.

And do you think I am the only one to notice that? That when I looked at the chart even a layman like me noticed it only looked at SMR and not a BWR or PWR reactor? I can guarantee that others have asked that very question, but they will be ignored because like a great many "studies" today, the creators set the conditions themselves and are not really interested in actual facts but steering discourse in the way they want.

And as expected, instead of wondering why they only included the most experimental and expensive form of "nuclear" instead of lower cost and proven systems, you just grow sarcastic. Hence, why I tend to dismiss you a great many times. You have no interest in actual facts and data, only pushing an agenda. Where as I have no agenda, but do notice when they are being pushed and will always point that out.

Tell me, would you have posted this if the report included BWR reactors, which are actually cheaper than both wind and solar? Would you have shared a report that announced that nuclear power is one of the cheapest forms of power there is? Honestly, I doubt you would have posted that at all.

 

And again you did not read far enough because they explain why the used that model and again we have no existing nuclear power plants so would have to bear full upfront costs

 

I did read it. And pointed out that they did not include that data.



Now that is an older report of theirs from 2019. But once again notice, the only nuclear it includes is SMR. Why are they not including BWR or PWR?

One thing analysts can study is not only the information provided, but the information excluded. And when multiple time proven technologies are excluded that tells me that the data is not really accurate.

Of course, I also know that odds are they will never build nuclear reactors in Australia, and I do not live there so really do not give a damn.

But as always, I am simply pointing out that the actual claims are not actually accurate because they are not using all the potential data available.

 

SMR are the most cost efficient even though they produce less power. They require less external equipment and safety features and are cheaper for cleanup. There is no point of comparing it to other nuclear facilities if the SMR cannot even compete.

 

It doesn't matter because we need baseline power for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.

If we used solar for a baseline power need, we would need facilities to store that power and then release it at night. I'd like to see the cost comparison between solar and nuclear with that in mind. You also have to consider the massive amount of land consumed for solar panels. Is the land cost included in this estimate?

 

And that has to matter exactly in what way?

What, you think you would be building the plants yourself? And that there are no trained experts already in your country that know how to operate such plants?

Guess what, cupcake. Every kind of power generation no matter what means that experts will have to be trained. Even for hydro or natural gas. And do you think an SMR would be different? I say it again, it is a brand new technology only 15 years old and not yet in commercial operation! There are no existing plants of that kind, other than in labs.

As usual, you do not like it when somebody points out your data is misleading. And you attack me yet again, yet refuse to see that it is misleading. Why is that so freaking hard to do?

You know, maybe go "Yeah, they did leave out that kind of generation. I wonder why it was simply dismissed, yet they went into a detailed cost analysis about a system that in reality does not even exist yet?"

 

Potentially.

That is in theory, but one also has to remember that there are none in actual service as of this time. So any cost breakdowns are only predictions.

And one should absolutely never take a prediction as an absolute fact. That is a huge failure when it comes to science.

 

Or if the wind blows too hard.

When wind speeds hit around 75 km/h (46 mph), they have the blades feather and stop turning in order to prevent them from being damaged. I have lived near wind farms in California, and whenever the big storms came through they all shut down because they just can not be used in times of high winds.

 

Yes I think nuclear will be different - don’t want Homer Simpson operating the plant

 

SMRs are really only effective when placed in remote locations that do not have a large power demand. That is why potential customers for them when they do actually become operational commercially is the military, NASA, and the ESA.

We might eventually see an SMR in Starlab. And there is a good chance if we do set up a permanent facility on the moon it will have an SMR.

But as I said, these are all still experimental. Years away from being available and still as the name says "small". To give an idea, one of the largest experimental reactors under construction at this time is the VOYGR plant in Poland. Construction started in 2022, and it is not even expected to be operational until 2029 at the earliest. And it would take five of those reactors just to power Melbourne.

Now if they are talking about building one in a remote area of Australia that has a demand of say 800 MW or less, then building SMR might make sense. But if a community does not meet those requirements, then it is absolutely pointless to even bring it up in the first place. For most of the nation, considering an SMR is about as nonsensical as trying to talk about hydro power in Qatar.

And yes, I have been following SMRs for years, as they fascinate me. Largely just an improvement on Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTG) that have been in service for over a century. And RTGs have fascinated me for decades, to be honest. But likely most people have never heard of them, other than in a movie several years ago.

 

Are you really trying to have an actual intelligent discussion about science by bringing up a cartoon character?

Sorry, now I take you even less seriously. Please let me know when (or if) you are actually interested in having a real discussion.

 

I am not allowed a degree of levity? Nice to know

 

Well, one thing I notice repeatedly is that you refuse to even consider or discuss things you do not like. Yet you seem almost giddy about things you agree with. I already asked point blank if you would have repeated this if they had actually considered PWR and BWR, which actually are cheaper than both solar and wind. And you completely ignored that and went off on a joke about Homer Simpson.

Is this a science thread, or a joke and meme thread? Or an "attack anybody who says something you do not like" thread, where the science does not matter at all?

And yes, I also use levity. But not as a way to avoid discussing the actual science itself that we are supposed to be discussing. I have to wonder, did you even know what an SMR or RTG were before I brought them up? Or the difference between a PWR and BWR? Because all I seem to see in any of your posts which are not actually discussing the science at all is you pushing beliefs and not actually discussing the science or technology themselves. Or dodging and making excuses and avoiding actually discussing anything of merit.

 

Speaking of Australia . . . .
Has Australia’s Nuclear Debate Killed Renewable Energy Investment?

It would appear CSIRO has been caught up in politics.

Essay by Eric Worrall

Expectations that the next Aussie administration will back nuclear over renewables appears to have wrecked attempts to attract private renewable investment.

Coalition opposes Australia tripling renewable energy, backs nuclear power pledge at Cop28

Ted O’Brien declares global climate summit ‘the nuclear Cop’ despite only 11% of nations backing the pledge

Adam Morton in Dubai @adamlmortonSun 10 Dec 2023 09.41 AEDT

The federal Coalition has declared at the Cop28 climate summit that it will back a global pledge to triple nuclear energy if the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, becomes prime minister, but will not support Australia tripling its renewable energy.

Speaking on the sidelines of the conference in Dubai, the opposition’s climate change and energy spokesperson, Ted O’Brien, also said a Coalition government would consider supporting Generation III+ large-scale nuclear reactors, and not just the unproven small modular reactors it has strongly touted.

The statement at the global summit confirmed the Coalition was on a markedly different path to Labor. The Albanese government last week joined more than 120 countries in backing a pledge to triple renewable energy and double the rate of energy efficiency by 2030, but did not sign up with 22 countries that supported tripling nuclear power by 2050.

…

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...energy-if-peter-dutton-becomes-prime-minister
Opposition backing for nuclear energy appears to have triggered a desperate Aussie government attempt to rescue their Net Zero dreams by bankrolling them with government money. But the current green Aussie government has no hope of providing the level of funding they anticipated would be provided by private investors. . . .

 

Hence, completely leaving off the actual kinds of efficient and nuclear power that is actually in use, and only discussing an experimental system that is not actually in use anywhere but inside of labs.

And notice, I said nothing about the accuracy of the report, I simply pointed out that it is misleading as the only nuclear power it lists does not actually exist at this time. And ignored the plant designs that have been in use internationally for over half a century.

Whenever that is done, it is almost always for political purposes. Because they are trying to steer the narrative and not actually looking into facts in a nonpartisan way. And that is fine, but they should be transparent about that and say so, not mislead as this study has done. They think there are issues because of training or whatever, fine. Still include the cost data, then add that in the study itself saying that would be an additional cost.

But that also fails completely when they only discuss that on BWR and PWR, but not SMR. Because that would need the same thing, and no matter where it is at. Because nobody anywhere knows how to work with these reactors at this time because they literally only exist in labs. This technology is that new.

I never said the study was inaccurate, I was simply point out that it is obviously partisan and not giving a complete picture. Which is a far cry and very different from those that outright dismiss anything they do not like at all. They attack the paper, the creators, and anything else associated with it.

 

As I keep saying, because we have been having this discussion now for years, we don’t have a nuclear infrastructure. We have ONE power plant (Lucas heights) that makes radioactive medical implants and it is ageing as is the technology and that is it. This CSIRO report is not the first one neither will it be the last. Australia has to work through what is best for US. We have a low population and a wide distribution network so centralised energy production is counterproductive.

 

Sounds like the logical move is for Australia to continue to strip mine coal, sell it to Asia and Europe, and build some more wind generators with the profits.

 

Which is completely irrelevent.

Did you have a solar infrastructure before you put that in? A wind infrastructure?

This is known as "making lame-assed excuses", and nothing else.

 

Start up and establishing a workforce likely would be expensive, no doubt. We enjoy an advantage because our Navy operates nuclear powers submarines and air craft carriers which provides a pool of talent. Somewhat ironically we also seem to produce a lot of whackadoodles that oppose actually using this source.

 

And yet, it appears that opposition to nuclear power is political rather than practical.

 

I’ve heard Oliver Stone did a documentary on irrational opposition to nuclear power generation. Listened to him talk about it on JRE. Has anyone seen it?