Cost update blasts nuclear out of energy mix   
New Daily
Dec 21, 2023



A surge in the cost of small nuclear reactors has forced the national science agency to change its calculations for Australia.

The latest modelling of all energy sources, released by CSIRO on Thursday, includes data from a recently scrapped project in the US that was showcasing nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) as a way to fight climate change.

The draft GenCost 2023-24 report, out for consultation over summer, shows that while inflation pressures are easing there has been a recalculation on SMRs that puts them out of reach.

Real data on a high-profile six-reactor power plant in the US has confirmed that the contentious technology costs more than any energy consumer wants to pay.

Project costs for the Utah project were estimated at $18,200 per kilowatt, but the company has since disclosed a whopping capital cost of $31,100/kW, prompting its cancellation in November.

In contrast, under existing policies the cost of new offshore wind in Australia in 2023 would be $5545/kW (fixed) and $6856/kW (floating), while rooftop solar panels are calculated at a modest $1505/kW.

The GenCost report is an annual update of the costs of electricity generation, energy storage and hydrogen production, which attempts to build in the transmission and integration costs.

As a benchmark, the final report for 2024 will guide government and investor decisions about how to meet climate pledges and create the lowest-cost electricity grid for Australians.



Industry and Science Minister Ed Husic said the CSIRO report showed renewables, particularly wind and solar, remained frontrunners as the cheapest and most effective options to deliver a reliable grid to industry and households.   

Amid a global inflation bubble, capital costs for most energy technologies rose by 20 per cent in 2022, including nuclear.

The latest figures show increases in 2023 of up to 14 per cent for gas turbines, 8 per cent for onshore wind (down from a 35 per cent spike in 2022), 2 per cent for big batteries and a fall of 8 per cent for solar farms.

Of the fossil fuel technologies, CSIRO said it was difficult to say which was more competitive as it depended on contracts for long-term fuel supply and the investor’s perception of climate policy risk.

A small but vocal group of industry backers have been calling for nuclear SMRs for some years, citing the emerging low-emission technology as being suitable for Australia’s vast and geologically stable landmass.

The Coalition recently pledged to reopen the nuclear debate in Australia, where laws ban any research or use of nuclear energy despite the country having the world’s largest uranium reserves.

Regulators estimate it would be about 15 years to first production from a decision to build nuclear SMR in Australia, given the scale of legislative change required.

But even if a decision to pursue a nuclear SMR project in Australia were taken today, with political backing for new laws, it is “very unlikely” a project would be up and running as quickly as 2038, CSIRO said.

Further, CSIRO warned nuclear electricity costs put forward by proponents may be for technology that is not appropriate for Australia, or calculated from Russian and Chinese government-backed projects that don’t operate commercially.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 21^st, 2023 at 11:40am:



The project in the USA was scrapped because the CSIRO was pushing an agenda was it

Belgarion wrote on Dec 21^st, 2023 at 12:49pm:


Much better everyone goes off your ramblings

A logical rebuttal to the CSIRO's blatant agenda mongering from Senator Gerald Rennick's page :

At the end of every year the CSIRO releases what is known as a Gencost report.
Every year they claim that renewables are cheaper based on false assumptions.
A quick perusal of these assumptions show the following flaws.
1. Recycling costs aren’t included (Not mentioned at all)
2. The maximum storage capacity for batteries is around 4-8 hours. Beyond that, pumped hydro is required. There are hardly any of these built. The Snowy Hydro project cost has already blown out to $12 billion up from an initial $2 billion. This is ignored by the CSIRO and the same blowouts will apply to future pumped hydro projects.
3. Additional costs associated with each technology and in particular the significant integration costs of variable renewable electricity generation technologies. An example of integration costs are transmission lines which is estimated to cost over $100 billion. (page 55)
4. Capacity factors are overstated for Wind and Solar and understated for Coal. Wind power will not operate 60% of the time and its lowest capacity will be much lower than 40% for offshore and 29% for onshore. Coal can run at least 80% of the time, not 53% of the time. (page 78)
5. A Climate policy risk premium has been added to Coal and Gas, almost doubling costs into the future. This is entirely arbitrary by the CSIRO. If a climate risk premium is added to Coal and Gas, why isn’t an environmental risk premium added to solar, wind, storage and transmission for all the community and environmental damage they will cause. If the CSIRO thinks people are just going to roll over and let renewables blight the landscaping they have another thing coming. (page 80)
6. The life of the Wind and Solar generation is estimated to be the same as Coal power fired stations. This is incorrect. Coal powered fire stations last at least 50 years whereas renewables are about 20 years if that. This again halves the cost of renewables. (page 78)
7. O&M Variable costs for Coal are $4.20MWh yet the Finkel report showed the actual costs of Gladstone and Kogan Creek black coal were as low $1.28MWh and $1.31MWh. There is 400 million tonnes of coal at Kogan Creek that belongs to the Australian people. It doesn’t have to be imported. (page 78)
The easiest way to rebut the “renewables are cheaper” argument is to ask why energy bills are up. Wholesale prices for example are up by 50% due to transmission and storage costs.
No amount of figure fudging can hide that reality, no matter how hard the bureaucrats try.

Yet more rebuttal  of the CSIRO propaganda:

The Energy Grinch
By Regulation Economics Principal, Alan Moran 
27 December 2023
Just before Christmas, the CSIRO presented the government with an analysis in support of their beliefs that wind and solar are the cheapest electricity supply sources. The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) also issued its latest Integrated Systems Plan (ISP), carrying a similar but more nuanced message.
Overlooking evidence that the higher the share of renewables the higher the electricity price, CSIRO’s analysis (GenCost 2023-24) also rejected concerns that the intermittent nature of renewables would translate to impossibly high costs.
Implicitly, the report endorsed the COP28 climate forum’s communique that urges governments to further inch their economies away from coal, gas, and oil. As an added bonus for the government, the CSIRO report lambasted the Coalition’s recent nuclear besottedness, saying this too is vastly more expensive than wind and solar.
Stung by criticism that its earlier cost confections simply assumed the availability of transmission and other support for new, dispersed and irregular wind and solar, CSIRO this time claims to have added in these costs. And voila! Wind and solar are still the cheapest forms of power.
To arrive at that result, CSIRO plays down the cost and need for wind and solar backup. It overstates the cost of coal new plants by:
    understating its operational capability (its consultants, Aurecon, use a 93 per cent ‘capacity factor’ whereas CSIRO uses a maximum of 80 per cent)
    overstating the cost of fuel; and
    assuming a new coal plant would be located on a green field site with no existing infrastructure.
The government was delighted by the GenCost report. Tweedledee Chris Bowen opined, ‘The latest GenCost report reiterates what we already know – renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy in Australia now and in 2030, even when accounting for storage and transmission costs.’
Tweedledum Ed Husic added, ‘CSIRO’s report also shows that renewables, particularly wind and solar, remain front-runners as Australia’s cheapest and most effective options to deliver a reliable grid to continue to power Australian industry and households.’
A corollary of the report’s ‘findings’ are that the government subsidies to renewables – some $10 billion a year – are superfluous and should be dispensed with! Neither ministers nor the CSIRO chose to recognise this.
The conviction of Australian ministers about renewables being lower cost is not shared by others. At COP28, India’s Power Minister, R. K. Singh stated, ‘We are not going to compromise on availability of power for our growth, even if it requires that we add coal-based capacity.’ India will soon have 80 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fuelled power generating capacity; Australia’s diminishing coal capacity is 23 GW.
Reporting on COP28, Xinhua, the Chinese government’s semi-official mouthpiece, using Commie-waffle said, ‘China upholds the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in dealing with energy transition and consistently advocates for finding the greatest common denominator, setting each country’s energy, food, and economic security as a precondition.’ China is home to 53 per cent of the world’s coal generation capacity and to 72 per cent of planned new capacity!
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) in its latest Integrated Systems Plan (ISP) was more guarded in its support for wind and solar. Unlike CSIRO, AEMO’s executives know that its plans could go wrong, which would prove disastrous for their careers.
Originally, AEMO’s ISPs were reports indicating where new capacity might be profitably located. They emerged from an over-resourced government entity looking for things to do. Market participants in energy or other industries do not need a government agency to advise them where to invest. Profitable opportunities drove new power station development between 2001 and 2008, and even an entrepreneurial interconnect, Murraylink between SA and Victoria.
More recent years have seen an environmentalist take-over of the electricity market’s administration. This has converted the ISP into an investment blueprint that specifies what facilities would be needed to operationalise the plans of energy ministers to replace coal and gas. A key parameter is the ministerial requirement of 82 per cent of electricity in the National Electricity Market be supplied from renewable sources by 2030. While swearing fealty to this ‘energy transition’, conscious that politicians will blame it for any failures, AEMO also warns replacing coal with wind and solar ‘faces significant risks if market and policy settings, social licence and supply chain issues are not quickly addressed’.
Even with a very high share of wind and solar, though not with as much as 82 per cent, extensive blackouts are avoidable. This is because controls can match supply and demand (including by selectively shutting down particular large customers or geographic areas).
Nonetheless, AEMO recognises that closure of coal stations and reliance on renewables brings increasing risks. Hence its warning that facilitative investment is necessary. And it also supports the Commonwealth’s Capacity Investment Scheme (CIS), which is to subsidise gas backup plant for a wind and solar-based system.