Seems Australia has dodged a bullet by NOT having Nuclear, now some are trying to catch that bullet for political points.
I understand exponential is hard to grasp..
The low kerf diamond wire saw is also a critical technology for this, but the powdered diamond required can be synthetic.
The fact that “the all-in cost of the electricity they produce promises to be less than half as expensive as the cheapest available today” is what sinks nukes. Burn fossil fuels longer, be judicious in adding gas so batteries have a chance to take hold (we’ve already fucked this up in Europe and America), and accept that while the transition will be dirtier you’ll have a cheaper grid in the end.
That said, just as decarbonisation isn’t the only variable, LCOE isn’t either. Australia will have to maintain a nuclear fleet for military purposes. Taking into account that sunk cost, a civilian fleet’s math might change. (I’m doubtful, but maybe.)
Australia has 2x the sunshine of Europe, more spare land for panels, and less seasonal variability.
Australia has no existing nuclear plant experience. No experienced regulator or legal regime. High labor costs and little relevant local labor. And a track record of project cost blowouts and time overruns on large projects.
Australia's small energy needs are also an issue. The marginal cost of new nuclear drops after you build the first few plants but Australia has such small energy needs that it won't reap the fruits of scale benefits.
Australia has large community opposition to nuclear but not to solar. About 35% of the electorate approve of nuclear, with almost all state premiers publicly stating opposition, while 80% approve of solar. This will lead to social licensing risks like what Germany, Japan, Taiwan and California face with planning and legislative delays, and potential early plant closures leading to wasted capex and higher energy costs.
Australia's peak scientific body, the CSIRO, estimates that a mostly decarbonized grid will be 2x more expensive with nuclear than pure renewables with transmission and storage. The above local factors contribute to that conclusion.
In other words, Australia is not China. And even in China, solar is beating nuclear.
Yeah, because having a cheaper and cleaner grid would be soo bad
We don’t include the cost of disposing of spent panels and turbines either. Nuclear waste’s risks are hyped beyond reason. What kills nuclear is the capital cost of building it.
In the end, it’s fine. We’ll do gas + wind + solar and that will take us through 2050.
Correct, the LCOE of nuclear is much higher than competitors’. Most of that, however, is regulatory, and it’s far from clear how much is necessary.
It's interesting you mention carbon costs. It's a fair point but also does not end up in nuclear's favor. Germany has been deploying more than a 1GW of solar per month this and last year. This will produce as much as two reactors worth of electricity (actually more but ok). If they were trying to shutdown coal plants with nuclear it would take around 15 years for those two reactors, likely more. So instead of their coal plants running for decades as they build out nuclear, they are sitting idly because solar deployment is quick. This matters too.
And that's the situation we are in. The discussion changes once you saturate the market with solar but even advanced economies are far away from that and the world as whole especially.