We still do not know what nuclear power costs. That is because no-one has figured out how to safely store the radioactive waste, short of putting it on a rocket to the sun. It needs to be securely stored for a long time - longer than any structure ever built by humans has survived. In fact, longer than anatomically modern humans have even existed. This is probably why Peter Dutton was lying on television recently about the quantity of radioactive waste produced.

If we limit ourselves to the immediate costs, nuclear is still by far the most expensive option. The attached figure shows the trend in levelised cost of electricity from various sources since 2009, from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Cost_metrics

Wind and solar cost about 5c/kWh, while nuclear costs about 20c/kWh. Wind and solar are rapidly getting cheaper, while the cost of nuclear is going up. Dutton recently promised us he could build nuclear power plants in 5 years. Then he changed it to 11 to 13 years. By the time they were actually built, the cost disparity would be even greater. Furthermore, Australia actually has experience with building wind and solar plants, but Dutton wants us to jump on the nuclear bandwagon after it has already become obsolete.

Further down the page, a cost (in Australia) of 9c/kWh is given for wind power with storage, and 12c/kWh for solar with storage.

I do not believe the coalition has any intention to actually build nuclear power plants in Australia. This is just another delaying tactic for avoiding the climate change issue. All they will deliver is another decade or two of crippling uncertainty and skyrocketing prices in our electricity industry. Labor and the Greens delivered us the cheapest, most economically rational way to reduce GHG emissions a decade ago. The coalition removed it.

Nuclear waste takes too long to decay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Some common nuclear waste half lives:

Plutonium 239 half life      24,110 years.
Americium 241 half life          432 years
Radium 226     Half life      1,600  years
Uranium 236  Half life   15 million years.
Plutonium 244 Half life   80 million years
Uranium 235  Half life  704 million years
Uranium 238 half life      4.5 billion years

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/23/peter-duttons-nuc...




Coalition proposal would cost a minimum of $116bn –
the same as Labor’s plan for almost 100% renewables by 2050, the Smart Energy Council says

The Coalition’s pledge to build seven nuclear reactors as part of its controversial energy plan could cost taxpayers as much as $600bn while supplying just 3.7% of Australia’s energy mix by 2050, according to the Smart Energy Council.

The analysis found the plan would cost a minimum of $116bn – the same cost as delivering the Albanese government’s plan for 82% renewables by 2030, and an almost 100% renewable energy mix by 2050.

The Coalition has drawn widespread criticism for not releasing the costings of the nuclear power proposal it unveiled on Wednesday as part of its plan for Australia’s energy future if elected. On Friday, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, said the costings would come “very soon”, but did not confirm whether it would be days, weeks or months.

of Australia’s energy - that's stuff all - it's almost nothing.   

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 10:09am:


The costs of nuclear power are mostly one off up front costs. After this the cost of the power itself is much cheaper, even without factoring in the reliability.
https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020
96% of nuclear 'waste' can be recycled and storage of the reminder is a negligible cost in the overall  scheme. Dealing with the waste of the so called 'renewables' however is an entirely different story.

Belgarion wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 11:36am:


Can it be recycled into something that is not radioactive?

How long does it need to be stored for, and how much much does that cost?

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 10:09am:


Did you mean the dearest option?

You wrote in the OP:

If we limit ourselves to the immediate costs, nuclear is still by far the most expensive option. The attached figure shows the trend in levelised cost of electricity from various sources since 2009, from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Cost_metrics

Wind and solar cost about 5c/kWh, while nuclear costs about 20c/kWh. Wind and solar are rapidly getting cheaper, while the cost of nuclear is going up.

Quote:


If indeed AGW-CO2 is threatening to destroy us, "taxpayers' $trillions"  will be the last of our problems.

And even if Oz can go 100% renewables backed with pumped-hydro storage (and I think we can, though Lee doesn't), many other countries can't do it without nuclear, which is why the US is deciding to recommence research into nulclear power, after falling behind China  (which is currently operating the world's first SMR).    

Note: the treasuries of currency-issuing governments can create money out of thin air (just like private banks do, when they write loans for credit-worthy customers), so 'taxpayer money' needn't be the concern, when it comes to converting the globe to a zero emissions economy. 

Resource mobilization, not money, is the problem to be solved. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 1:10pm:



Well there goes the cost of cheap renewables again.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 1:10pm:



Solar panels and turbine blades cannot be recycled.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 4:59pm:



I doubt that anyone will come up with a good way to recycle solar panels and turbine blades.

However - there is a possibility that nuclear waste can be used to power
molten salt Thorium reactors.
Unfortunately there seems to be little or no progress yet on such reactors.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/165#165

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 5:20pm:


You can eat gummy bears and a few insects because cow farts are bad.

Quote:

Click on fuel mix to see what is giving us electricity

Solar and wind currently 12%

https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-ne...

Quote:


Yes we do. We have installed plenty of both.

But we are yet to even come up with a good affordable solution for storing nuclear waste until it is safe.

Quote:


About 85% of a wind turbine is currently recyclable. The rest, at least, is not radioactive for a million years.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 9:58pm:


That's exactly what LCOE means. It is the life cycle cost. It takes that into account.

lee wrote on Jun 30^th, 2024 at 5:25pm:


Do you mean life span?

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2024 at 5:28pm:



You were the one parroting about "the life cycle cost".

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2024 at 8:34pm:


How many years did they use for the life cycle of nuclear? You are the one saying it is the most expensive, Or are you just wombling again. Not knowing what you are talking about? Strangely enough the CSIRO report doesn't mention how they calculated the life cycle of nuclear. Just said it was too expensive.

And as I said 4 hours of battery storage for renewables is not enough.

Lots of very deep mines way out west.... old and vacant now.  The Long Drop.....

lee wrote on Jul 1^st, 2024 at 4:13pm:


It's not an "opinion". It is what is actually costs - in countries that have actual experience with nuclear power..

lee wrote on Jul 1^st, 2024 at 5:02pm:


You're a bit slow on the uptake Lee. It is not an estimate for greenfields sites. It is actual cost trends from 2009 to 2022.

freediver wrote on Jul 1^st, 2024 at 5:05pm:


"The GenCost report notes that some of the challenges in trying to pin down an estimation for Australian nuclear plant costs based on overseas data includes:"

...

"Whilst there is a risk of a FOAK premium for a nuclear build in Australia, the CSIRO has not included it for large-scale nuclear given it has not included a premium for other technologies that are also not yet deployed locally, such as solar thermal or offshore wind."

"The ratio of Australian to South Korean USC plant costs used is 3.0 when all costs are considered in the same currency.  To arrive at the Australian figure of $9,217/kW, the South Korean costs were multiplied by 3.0, inflated and converted from USD in 2018/kW to AUD in 2023/kW. The report notes that new large-scale nuclear costs are significantly lower than those for an SMR."

"As a result of these factors the CSIRO argues “there may be no meaningful comparison that can be made between overseas nuclear electricity prices and the costs that Australia could be presented with in building new nuclear”."

...

"Construction is considered to take 5.8 years based on an assessment by advisory firm Lazard. The CSIRO contends that with the additional legal and safety and security steps needed locally “the first nuclear plant in Australia will be significantly delayed”.

It points to the 15 years considered to be needed for an SMR as an indicator of the time needed. It notes that even in the US with a more developed legislative framework for nuclear, the now cancelled Carbon Free Power Project (an SMR project) would have taken 15 years from its formal launch to reach full operation."

https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/large-scale-nuclear-costs-has-the-csir...

freediver wrote on Jul 1^st, 2024 at 9:02pm:


Australia has signed Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty which means we can get help with nuclear power.

UAE took 7 years to build first nuclear reactor for power 5 years for the next. It's quicker when you ask for help.

$8.6 billion is the cost according to CSIRO.

The Snowy Hydro 2 pumped hydro was supposed to cost $2 billion and be finished in 2021. So far it has cost over $12 billion with finish date around 2028-2029.
Pumped hydro consumes more energy than it produces you will lose 20-40% from efficiency losses.

Did they mention snowy hydro 2 in Gen Cost or leave that out?

It's unlikely anyone would be considering investing in nuclear since it's illegal at present. Did Howard sneak in making it illegal with another bill late one night?

chimera wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 8:05am:



Funny  ......but hat actually points out the hypocrisy of this Labor govt.

freediver wrote on Jul 1^st, 2024 at 9:02pm:


I am sure ANSTO would disagree about local experience, or the people at Tellus Holdings.

In fact ANSTO has recently signed an MOU with US National Nuclear Security at the International Atomic Energy Agency's in Vienna, on nuclear technology and capabilities. Sounds like a big deal for a country with "no experience".

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 11:39am:



Your claim was we have NO nuclear experience? "we have no local experience" 

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 3:30pm:


I am sure that is up your experience street. 

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 3:30pm:


You made a general statement. What should have been made of it, other than as a general observation?

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 3:30pm:


Are you really as stupid as you sound?

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 3:49pm:



Thank you.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 6:01pm:


Is that why you want to waste even more taxpayer money?

Korea can supply Large nuclear reactors for 9.5 billion. 7 makes 70 billion. The amount spent on renewables so far, far exceeds 100 billion dollars.

And of course it hasn't stopped.

"Australia's biggest power grid would need to triple in size within eight years and trillions of dollars would need to be spent, according to a report outlining the colossal task of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-19/australias-energy-transition-needs-gas-sa...

Trillions not Billions.

lee wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 7:40pm:











.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 7:29pm:


Why would it take 15 to 20 years to build a nuclear plant?

"Renewables" is a misnomer in regards to power supply.

What it should mean is that the infrastructure has to be "renewed" (replaced) far more regularly.

Clowns like you don't get the irony & hypocrisy of this lefty govt & it's infantile rejection of debating, considering nuclear as a means to reduce &
meet it's pie in the sky emissions targets....

yet have signed on board for the supply of at least 8 nuclear submarines ... that will be docked in locations within Australia and manned by Australian Naval personnel.

Quote:


Ask the coalition why they announced they could build one in 5 years, then a few weeks later changed it to 11-13 years.

In some cases it has taken multiple decades.

We have no established local industry. We have a small population and a labor shortage in the established power industry and similar industries. Unless they decide to build it on the outskirts of a major city, we will struggle to mobilise the number of people required, and the ones we do get out to site will be highly paid. We have stricter industrial safety standards than most countries, and this will be stepped up for nuclear. We also have a reluctant public, reluctant MPs and a legal system stacked against it.

Also, the coalition is lying to you. They have no intention of going nuclear. This is just another way to pretend they are committed to climate change while doing nothing about it.

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 1:38pm:



yes - I feel that nuclear power stations will just be a never ending money pit.
It will be hard to find qualified people to run the reactors safely.
We'll have to import them at high cost -
who would want to live near say the old Hazelwood power station in the Latrobe valley?
Apart from making Yellowcake we have no nuclear industry here.
We don't make fuel rods either.
Do we even have university courses for nuclear power station engineers?
Maybe we'd have to sponsor people to go overseas to learn about it?

Gnads wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 9:03am:







.




.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 9:51am:



The CSIRO -

"The CSIRO has crunched the numbers and estimates building a large-scale nuclear power plant in Australia would cost at least $8.5 billion and produce electricity at roughly twice the cost of renewable sources."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-19/cost-of-going-nuclear-missing-in-coalitio...

And that's after the CSIRO tripled the price.

"GenCost based its large‐scale nuclear cost on South Korean costs as the best representation of a continuous building program consistent with other technologies in the report. GenCost then adjusted for differences in Australian and South Korean deployment costs by studying the ratio of new coal generation costs in each country. That ratio is used to scale the South Korean large‐scale nuclear costs to Australian deployment costs."

Gen-cost final report.

"The ratio of Australian to South Korean USC plant costs used is 3.0 when all costs are considered in the same currency.  To arrive at the Australian figure of $9,217/kW, the South Korean costs were multiplied by 3.0, inflated and converted from USD in 2018/kW to AUD in 2023/kW. The report notes that new large-scale nuclear costs are significantly lower than those for an SMR."

https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/large-scale-nuclear-costs-has-the-csir...

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 1:57pm:



Bullshyte ... they are the same Private Enterprise companies involved in the fossil fuel/energy industry and what they see are the govt renewables subsidies to milk and make a fortune.

2nd highlight - more bullshyte ... how do you know any private company sees Nuclear as pouring money into bottomless pit?

This country has more pluses for building nuclear than many around the globe.

We have the natural resources, we have the space to place the stations & deal with the waste, we have the stability of a country without tsunamis or earthquakes, we have the ability of smart people technology wise ....

and where have the ALP taken us all with someone else's (every Australian taxpayer, in this case) money?

Clown

Setanta wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 6:18pm:


or one neuron at a time ... even a FD.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 8:35pm:


I don't support subsidies either. You are right they are a waste of money. You have the coalition to thank for that. They got rid of the cheapest way to reduce GHG emissions and left us with the most expensive options.

Gnads wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 5:59pm:


I was making a point about the difficulty of mobilising a massive workforce in Australia. It obviously went right over your head, because you thought the same thing applied to wind turbines and solar panels. It doesn't.

Quote:


Ever heard of a battery? Both solar with storage and wind with storage are cheaper than nuclear.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 8:48pm:


They've looked at it. They see the coalition doing backflips every few weeks, whereas they need several decades of stable government policy to make the risk pay off.

Gnads,
Quote:



Running a nuclear power station is a hell of a lot different to
running a coal fired power station.

No one is busting to go and live in the horrible Latrobe valley.

It would be a lot better if we had some kind of nuclear industry here.
We export Yellowcake and that's it.
Australia has almost zero experience with nuclear technology.

It could be very difficult to organise nuclear technology engineering degrees here.
We might be good at making bridges and roads but nuclear is a whole new ball game.
We might only get the university lecturers that John West rejected from overseas.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 9:17pm:


https://www.unsw.edu.au/engineering/study-with-us/study-areas/nuclear-engineerin...

Probably a better career choice compared to gender studies or arts

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 8:39pm:


No you weren't making a point ... you were just being your usual obtuse halfsmart sarcastic self.

Who said anything about a "massive" workforce??

You I believe.

And the work force required to build all the renewable projects on the go at present would be bigger than what's required to build a power station .... nuclear or not.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 9:17pm:



A repeat of your rubbish.

Our medical system is full of overseas born & trained doctors and professionals.

Been to the doctor lately ... trust your GP or Specialist?????? 

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 8:35am:



There was no point. It didn't go anywhere except around in the space between your ears.

We are not talkng about high school kids doing little solar projects on houses in the city.

We are talking the industrial scale wind & solar projects around the country.

And it would be far easier to mobilise a workforce for 1 power station in a coastal or near coastal location than for all the renewables projects going on regionally throughout the central and west of Vic, NSW & Qld alone without the other states and territories who are building them as well.

You're just deflecting.

Quote:


What makes you think that? How many people do you think are needed to build a modern nuclear power station?

Quote:


How many of Dutton's proposed sites are on the coast? Do you think the workers are going to be commuting from a capital city?

Do you have any kind of awareness of the logistical difficulties associated with such large projects?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 9:01am:



Ask yourself that about all the regional remote wind & solar farm projects.

All of the LNPs suggested nuclear sites are close to regional cities/towns.

Quote:

Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 11:24am:


Football, meat pies, kangaroos, and Holden cars?

The aspects Australia has expertise in can't be exported ... easily?

Quote:


... and the stump-jump plow.

Dear Mods,

Gnads called me a numpty.

Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 1:48pm:



Listen you numpty - we have almost zero experience with nuclear power stations.   

Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 8:51am:


which require electricians and mechanical engineers,  industries we have extensive experience with and of which we have extensive trained personnel to draw from.