Nuclear VS Renewables: What Will It Cost?

Is nuclear energy really double the cost of renewables? That’s what all the headlines say, but this soundbite doesn’t hold up under scrutiny – especially when you compare all the massive costs being paid by Australians now and in coming decades to support renewables. Watch the video to find out how fixing three key flaws in the CSIRO’s GenCost model shows that nuclear is cost-competitive with renewables.

#auspol #nuclear #nuclearaustralia

______________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS promotes free choice and individual liberty and the open exchange of ideas. CIS encourages debate among leading academics, politicians, media and the public. We aim to make sure good policy ideas are heard and seriously considered so that Australia can prosper. Follow CIS on our Socials;

💬 Join in the conversation in the comments.
👍 Like this video if you enjoyed it and want to see more, it really helps us out!
⏲️ Missed this event live? Subscribe to CIS to be up to date with all our events:

[clintonweier]

Thanks for your research, the general public need to know the facts, great work

[wyattfamily]

Finland very recently commissioned a new nuclear reactor for power generation, they were then able to reduce electricity costs by 75%.

[alastairgair]

Build nuclear! Instead of destroying native forests and natural habitats for our precious endangered wildlife!! A

[robinmasters]

Wind and Solar is an absolute waste of bloody money!! Well done, keep fighting the fight

[johnnykkkk]

Thanx for that information Nuclear is and will be always be needed.
Look at why Labor are hell bent on renewables. Superfunds industry based are run by Labor and unions they invest in renewables to get subsidies then Superfunds donate to the Unions then Unions donate to fund Labor at Elections
Follow the Money

[タコの王]

Batteries don’t last forever, you should also look at the cost of renewables for an 80-100 year period. The batteries and solar panels might need to be replace 3 or 4 times while nuclear will not.

[MrElifire]

But, but Nuclear is a naughty word!?!? 😂😂
Love this. So simple. So straight forward. Anti Nuclear Sentiment is so hallow and silly. Great job.

[markboscawen]

There are a few costs omitted from the nuclear side.

1) the cost of integrating 1.1GW NPPs into the Australian Grid.
Only four of the sites proposed by Dutton are ‘plug n play’ for 1.1 GW sized generators. The other sites require massive grid connection upgrades.

2) the cost of 1.1 GW of backup generation capability to cover a unit going off-line for planned maintenance & unplanned outages.
Added to that is the upgrades to the entire transmission network to shift such large amounts of power from 1 State to another to cover those off-line periods.

3) refurbishment costs for a reactor to achieve a 60+ year lifespan.
The reactor vessel itself may last for 60+ years, but the generation, cooling & control systems need extensive refurbishment &/or replacement several times to achieve that lifespan. That’s one of the reasons for CSIRO’s 30 year lifespan. Apart from the reactor vessel & the building itself, the NPP needs to be gutted & rebuilt for a reliable life beyond that age.

4) the cost of sustaining the grid until the full fleet of NPPs could be on-line.
More than 60% of Australia’s aging C-F power plants will reach end of equipment life before even the first NPP could be commissioned. Just keeping one C-F power station going for 2 years is costing the NSW Govt (ie taxpayers) $450Million. Keeping the entire fleet going would cost in excess of $16Billion. And $Billions more if there were major equipment failures from those plants being pushed well beyond their designed lifespan.

If, instead of paying $16Billion+ just to keep worn out C-F power stations going for just over a decade, that money was used to install RE with a 30 year lifespan then nuclear would be redundant. Which leads to …

5) overstating the capacity factor in a high RE grid.
During periods of favourable conditions for RE generation nuclear, with the higher operational cost, wouldn’t be able to compete & would have to scale back output. Ie reduce its capacity factor. This is already occurring in France where NPPs have been completely temporarily shut down because of the high amount of cheap solar power in the grid. This is why using the historical capacity factors for nuclear is misleading & the CSIRO/AEMO estimate is valid.

Now of course, RE could be curtailed so nuclear can continue. But that creates the insane situation of higher electricity costs as free electricity is being turned off for power with a much higher cost of production.

[carrdoug]

Very, very well done. A couple of other factors to reinforce your argument. The capacity factor for solar globally is 10-31, wind is, on average, about 25. I heard a UK wind/solar developer recently state that the industry plans for a 4x overbuild because of these poor capacity factor numbers. Both wind and solar have a design lifespan of 25 years. The current actual lifespan for wind turbines + blades is 7 years. In the US, grid scale solar panels, as of a recent 60-minute report, are replaced on average every 5 years.

[stevenstart]

I've had dealings with two wind generation companies and one proposed transmission line company who want to use my farm land and I can tell you they have all been dishonest beyond belief.
I'm not surprised that thier costings are dishonest.

[sabbathguy]

Since when has any large scale project in this country arrived on time and on budget? Are we factoring that in, too?

[noordhup]

Can you send a copy of this to all politicians

[PeterElla]

You definitely nail it 👏👏👏
thank you It’s definitely time to go nuclear ⚛️🇦🇺
How much does renewables cost from 2050 to 2124 considering next gen nuclear can last 80 to 100 years?

[tomesplin]

Just a small point, as I have experience in costing justifying major capital projects. Extending the economic life from 30 years to 60 years doesn’t impact present costs and returns to any degree. The present value of future dollars is insignificant past 25 to 30 years, so that is why economic models don’t calculate past this point.

[johnflying]

As a scientist, I’m so glad I’ll be around to see this energy transition lunacy debunked.

[Tennyson]

I sat through the 2024 ISP webinar, and also noted the CER, consumer energy resources which is a huge chunk of assumed storage that was not costed, just a burden put on consumers.
The ISP went on to suggest that if CER weren't available, then it would only cost $4billion to replace it with grid scale storage, seemed ludicrously under quoted to me, so thankyou for raising awareness of this.
The environmental and social impact of rolling out renewables along the great dividing range is wholly unacceptable. If this is to be done then put the solar and wind farms much further west where it wont impact people, high value ecosystems or food production.

[Jim-ij]

Excellent absolutely excellent. Great video full of true information…
Thanks for that…

[hmcdonald]

Outstanding vid, thanks for the data dump!

[Pokersmith]

Doesn't factor in the cost to the environment too. By removing the forests that convert co2 to oxygen they will never achieve their net zero.

[johnc]

Write to your local member of Federal HoR and your Senators and tell them your pissed about the transition. Demand a new approach that includes nuclear. Also request that the legislative ban on nuclear power be repealed, poste haste.