CSIRO’s new GenCost report warns against nuclear power for Australia

A new report from the CSIRO has found that nuclear power doesn’t make sense for Australia, even after considering new parameters, with large-scale solar and large batteries still the cheapest option.

In an official update released on Monday, as the federal opposition prepares to release its charges, Australia’s leading science agency warns that taxpayers will need deep pockets and a lead time of at least 15 years to support nuclear power generation. to develop.

For the seventh year in a row, renewables were the cheapest of all new electricity-generating technologies.

After a global energy crisis and equipment shortage several years ago, large-scale solar energy storage and lithium batteries have weathered the inflationary period the best of all technologies.

The cost of batteries showed the biggest annual decline, with capital costs falling by a fifth. The costs for solar energy on roofs are also falling.

Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear policy analyst Dave Sweeney said four million households with rooftop solar, energy producers and retailers have already voted with their feet and wallets.

“Nuclear power is not the right choice for Australia, which has some of the best renewable energy sources in the world,” he said.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton, who monitors sites in seven regional centres, has promised to release the coalition’s nuclear costs ‘this week’.

CSRIO’s GenCost 2024-25 report released for consultation comes as the coalition pushes for an end to Australia’s nuclear ban and promises to have reactors online within a decade if elected in 2025.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton, who monitors sites in seven regional centres, has promised to release the coalition’s nuclear costs ‘this week’.

But nuclear power generation would be one and a half to two times more expensive than large-scale solar power, according to analysis by national science agency CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator.

A one-gigawatt nuclear power 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 build new connection points to safely supply the national electricity grid, experts warn.

Advocates have demanded greater recognition of the potential cost benefits of nuclear power’s longevity compared to solar panels and wind turbines, but Paul Graham, CSIRO’s chief energy economist and lead author of GenCost, said he couldn’t find it.

“Similar cost savings can be achieved with shorter-lived technologies, including renewables, even after accounting for the need to build them twice,” Graham said.

The nuclear power capacity factor – which refers to how many years a reactor could operate at full capacity – remains unchanged at 53-89 per cent, based on verifiable data and taking into account Australia’s unique electricity generation needs.

The often touted example from the United Arab Emirates of a relatively short twelve-year construction time for nuclear energy would also not be feasible here, the report shows, because Australians need consultation.

“The facts are set out very clearly in the GenCost report, and our government respects the work of CSIRO scientists and researchers and listens to that advice,” Industry and Science Minister Ed Husic said.

“Peter Dutton’s nuclear fantasy not only threatens to blow the budget, but also threatens jobs and household energy bills,” he said.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen said renewables would remain the cheapest new-build electricity generation in Australia until 2050, as standalone assets and taking into account the storage, transmission and amplification required.

The report is open for industry, community and political feedback until February 11.