Power planners have found nuclear energy does not stack up for Australia even after considering new parameters, with large-scale solar and big batteries still the lowest-cost option.In the draft generation cost update released on Monday, scientists and energy officials warn taxpayers will need deep pockets and a lead time of at least 15 years to develop nuclear energy generation.For the seventh straight year, renewables were the lowest-cost of any new-build electricity-generating technology.After a global energy crisis and equipment supply crunch several years ago, large-scale solar and lithium battery storage have weathered the inflationary period the best of all technologies.Renewables are the lowest-cost new-build electricity-generating technology, power planners say. (Lukas Coch/AAP PHOTOS)The cost of batteries recorded the largest annual reduction, with capital costs down by one-fifth. Rooftop solar costs are also coming down.The draft GenCost 2024-25 Report comes as the coalition pushes for an end to Australia’s nuclear ban and promises to have reactors online in as soon as 10 years if elected in 2025.Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, eyeing sites in seven regional centres, has pledged to release the coalition’s nuclear costings “this week”.But nuclear energy generation would be 1.5 to two times more expensive than large-scale solar, according to the analysis released by the national science agency CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator.A one-gigawatt nuclear plant has a price tag of roughly $9 billion, but the bill would double to $18 billion as the first of its kind.Operators would also need to establish new connection points to safely supply the national electricity grid, experts warn.Scientists and officials warn taxpayers will need deep pockets to develop nuclear energy generation. (Dave Hunt/AAP PHOTOS)Advocates have demanded greater recognition of the potential cost advantages of nuclear’s long operating life compared to solar panels and wind turbines, but CSIRO chief energy economist and GenCost lead author Paul Graham said he found none.”Similar cost savings can be achieved with shorter-lived technologies including renewables, even when accounting for the need to build them twice,” Mr Graham said.Nuclear’s capacity factor – referring to how much of a year a reactor could operate at full tilt – remains unaltered at 53-89 per cent based on verifiable data and consideration of Australia’s unique electricity generation needs.Nor would the often-touted United Arab Emirates example of a relatively quick 12-year nuclear construction time-frame be achievable here, the report found, because Australians require consultation.An increase in gas generation costs in the update included a premium for hydrogen readiness that was not included in previous data.All new gas turbine projects, including Kurri Kurri in NSW, are expected to include the capability for hydrogen blending and eventual conversion to hydrogen firing when supply becomes m
Gio. Dic 26th, 2024
