Even after taking into account new factors, power planners have concluded that nuclear energy is not a viable choice for Australia; large-scale solar and massive batteries continue to be the most affordable options.
Scientists caution that taxpayers will require substantial funding and at least 15 years to achieve nuclear energy generation in an official update issued Monday as the federal opposition gets ready to provide its costings.
Renewables were the least expensive new-build technology for producing power for the seventh consecutive year.
Of all the technologies, large-scale solar and lithium battery storage have fared the best during the inflationary period following a worldwide energy crisis and equipment supply shortage a few years ago.
With a one-fifth drop in capital expenses, batteries had the biggest annual decrease. Additionally, rooftop solar is becoming less expensive.
Four million families with rooftop solar, energy producers, and retailers have already cast their votes with their feet and money, according to Dave Sweeney, a nuclear policy analyst with the Australian Conservation Foundation.
With some of the world's top renewable energy resources, nuclear is not appropriate for Australia, he stated.
As the Coalition works to lift Australia's nuclear ban and pledges to get reactors online within ten years if elected in 2025, the GenCost 2024-25 Report was made available for consultation.
The Coalition's nuclear costings will be made public "this week," according to Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, who is considering locations in seven regional centers.
However, the national science agency CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator found that nuclear energy generation would be 1.5 to 2 times more expensive than large-scale solar.
The charge would treble to $18 billion as the first of its kind, even though a one-gigawatt nuclear facility costs only $9 billion.
Experts caution that in order to reliably supply the national electrical grid, operators would also need to set up additional connection points.
Paul Graham, the chief energy economist at CSIRO and the principal author of GenCost, said he did not find any evidence of the potential economic benefits of nuclear's long working life when compared to solar and wind turbines, despite calls from advocates for greater recognition of these benefits.
Even when taking into consideration the necessity of building them twice, comparable cost savings can be obtained with shorter-lived technologies, like as renewables, Graham stated.
Based on verified statistics and taking into account Australia's particular needs for energy generation, nuclear's capacity factor—which refers to how many years a reactor might run at full tilt—remains constant at 53–89%.
The analysis concluded that the frequently cited 12-year nuclear development timeline in the United Arab Emirates would not be feasible in this case due to the need for engagement with Australians.
According to Industry and Science Minister Ed Husic, the facts are set out quite clearly in the GenCost study, and our government appreciates the work of CSIRO scientists and researchers and listens to that advise.
He noted that in addition to blowing out the budget, Peter Dutton's nuclear fantasy threatens jobs and household electricity costs.
As independent assets and when taking into consideration the necessary storage, transmission, and firming, renewable energy sources continue to be Australia's most affordable new-build electricity generation until 2050, according to Energy Minister Chris Bowen.
0 Comments