Nuclear powers down as global reactor numbers shrink   
Yahoo News.
Mon 3 March 2025

The number of nuclear reactors operating around the world is shrinking, a report has found, and renewable energy generation is outpacing the technology.   

The EnergyScience Coalition released the findings on Monday in a report analysing progress on renewable and nuclear energy generation, as well as investments in each.

It found nuclear power generation was "stagnating rather than growing" despite claims to the contrary, and that only three countries were planning to add nuclear reactors to their energy mix, while another three were planning to phase it out.

The report comes after the coalition pledged to establish nuclear power plants in seven Australian locations if it won the upcoming federal election, and after warnings that Australia could miss its climate targets by years under a nuclear plan.


The EnergyScience Coalition study, authored by academics from the University of Melbourne and the Nuclear Consulting Group, found the number of nuclear power plants worldwide had shrunk from 438 in 2002 to 411 last year.

Nuclear reactors also generated just 9.15 per cent of the world's energy in 2024, it noted, compared to 17.5 per cent in 1996, and gained 4.3 gigawatts during the year.

By comparison, renewable energy sources added 666 gigawatts, according to the International Energy Agency, and were expected to overtake coal-fired power generation this year.

Claims about the number of countries investing in nuclear reactors had also been overstated in Australia, co-author and Nuclear Consulting Group member Jim Green said.

Nuclear reactors were being built in 13 countries, the study found, but only three were new to nuclear energy: Egypt, Bangladesh and Turkey.


The growth of renewable energy continues to outstrip that of nuclear power.
"This report provides a factual rebuttal to the pro-nuclear disinformation campaign currently underway in Australia," Dr Green said.



"There has been zero growth in nuclear power over the past 20 years and the number of countries operating reactors is the same as it was in the late 1990s."

Four countries had already phased out nuclear power generation, including Italy and Germany, the report said, and another three were planning to phase out the technology, including Switzerland and Spain.

Recent nuclear power projects in countries where the technology was well established had also suffered significant cost and time blow-outs including a project the US state of South Carolina that was abandoned and the Hinkley Point reactor in the UK that was expected to cost 11.5 times more than its original estimate.

The examples proved Australia would face a significant challenge to build nuclear reactors within deadlines and budgets, co-author and University of Melbourne Professor Jim Falk said.

"Reactor construction projects in countries with vast expertise and experience, such as France, the US and the UK, have run literally tens of billions of dollars over budget and construction schedules have slipped by many years," he said.



"Since those countries have failed to build reactors on time and on budget, it would be naive to believe that a nuclear newcomer country such as Australia could do it.   

The coalition's nuclear plan would establish five large nuclear reactors and two small modular reactors across five states, with the first forecast to be operational by 2035.

But a recent report from the Climate Change Authority found switching from a renewable energy pathway to nuclear would delay Australia's progress to its 2030 climate goal by 12 years.   

Also cost. Nuclear is now the most expensive option available. And that is not factoring the cost of storing the fuel until it is safe. People have good reason to fear radioactive waste. It is dangerous. Only an absolute moron would not fear it. Do you think the LNP is aware of that? Or are they still choosing which shovel to use? Dutton will want to turn the first clod on day one, to prove how effective the LNP is at getting things done. How high will electricity prices get before Dutton says he was only kidding and it is all Labor's fault?

lee wrote on Mar 7^th, 2025 at 1:21pm:


A lot less than the cost of the nuclear power plant. Don't tell the LNP though. They are on a roll.

lee wrote on Mar 7^th, 2025 at 1:29pm:


The cheapest plan was the one we had over ten years ago. The one implemented by the Greens and ALP, and scrapped by the LNP. It cost the government nothing. In fact, it raised huge amounts of revenue.

How effective it is depends entirely on the price. You can achieve any level of reduction you want, and it will always be cheaper than if the government tries to micromanage it.

The coalition's incompetence has also achieved a big increase in electricity prices, but they have nothing to show for it. It all goes to the shareholders of the existing coal fired power stations, when we could have used to it reduce all sorts of other taxes. The LNP's primary mechanism for reducing our GHG emissions is economic mismanagement.

lee wrote on Mar 7^th, 2025 at 3:43pm:


No it doesn't. This is just as stupid as claiming that communism can work if it is done properly. It will always be more expensive if the government micromanages it, because they do not have access to the cheapest ways to reduce GHG emissions.

Quote:


You are confused Lee. Giving it back as a tax break minimises the cost of reducing GHG emissions. You have made this claim many times, but you always run away from it, because you are dribbling meaningless gibberish. Like a coalition supporter.

Quote:


Why would the cost be the same if completely different mechanisms are employed? For example, would these two cost the same:

1) A bunch of people turning off lights more often.

2) Building a wind turbine with backup battery.

Quote:


You are also making claims. See above. Yours are just too idiotic to take seriously.

Would it make any difference to your answer? Or would you continue to blurt out idiocies about it still costing the same, like a coalition voter?