Refresh for live responses from our team and Australia's best nuclear experts in response to the the energy debate between Energy Minister Chris Bowen and Shadow Energy Minister Ted O'Brien on the ABC's 7:30 report.
Monday 9th December 7:40pm AEST
GenCost's methodology is no substitute for a total system cost: Ted O'Brien "the report today says that [LCOE methodology] is no substitute for an electricity system model."
Central to the CSIRO's GenCost report is a pricing methodology called the Levelled Cost of Energy or LCOE. This is different to the final price that household consumers pay for electricity.
The US Department of Energy in their recent Nuclear Liftoff Report analysed the use of LCOE, criticising it as a flawed methodology to assess the benefits of nuclear.
From our energy systems expert Dr Barr "LCOE is an interesting measure. We need to be very careful with how we use it with multiple methods of generation types"
One major issue with the report is its failure to factor in the full 80+ year lifetime of a nuclear plant. This was recently analysed in the Nuclear Liftoff Report produced by the United States Department of Energy finding it led to significantly lower system costs than what a typical LCOE calculation would produce.
Below you can see a slide from the US Nuclear Liftoff Report showing how LCOE fails to shows nuclear's real value.
Monday 9th December 7:40pm AEST
How do we bring down power bills?
Power bills now in Australia are now some of the highest in the world. Chris Bowen is blind to the rest of the world's learnings on nuclear
Nuclear is going to bring down costs in the medium to long term. short term we're stuck with a very poor trajectory. This is why we need to start planning to build nuclear now. We need a plan with nuclear power on it.
Monday December 9
How long does it take to build a nuclear plant?
The average time to build a nuclear plant worldwide is 6-8 years. Whilst Australia does have some pre-requisites for nuclear such as a regular, experience operating a reactor and some expertise it is likely there would be additional time required to establish an industry.
The International Atomic Energy Agency predicts a country without nuclear power could establish its first nuclear plant in 10-15 years following the milestones approach.
Experience suggests that the time from the initial consideration of the nuclear power option by a country to the operation of its first nuclear power plant is about 10–15 years
This timeframe has been confirmed by Australian nuclear law expert Helen Cook and MIT nuclear expert Jacopo Buongiorno who told a house committee Australia could have nuclear in under 12 years.
Monday December 9
Great to hear Sarah Ferguson breaking down the acronyms!
As I've learnt quickly myself there are a lot of acronyms when discussing energy and in particular nuclear.
Here's a glimpse into some of the most popular acronyms you'll hear:
-
SMRs: Small Modular Reactors. Small modular reactors are nuclear reactors that are typically under 300MW(e) designed to be built in modular components
-
NEM: National Electricity Market. The NEM describes the grid system operating in Queensland, New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia managed by AEMO.
-
PWRs: Pressurised Water Reactors. Pressurised Water Reactors are the most popular nuclear reactor design found in models such as the AP1000 and APR1400.
-
AEMO: Australian Energy Market Operator. AEMO is responsible for managing the east coast's grid.
-
LCOE: Levelized Cost of Electricity. LCOE is a metric for comparing the average cost of energy per energy unit. However, most experts agree it is not suitable for comparing renewables with nuclear given it auxiliary costs such as storage and transmission.
Monday 9th December
Nuclear vs Renewables or Nuclear + Renewables
On a side note it is disappointing how this debate is being framed as nuclear vs renewables as compared to nuclear + renewables. The truth is we need a balanced energy mix of all energy sources particularly given rising energy demands in Australia.
Monday 9th December 7:40pm AEST
Ted O'Brien to Minister Chris Bowen "Why not lift the [nuclear] moratorium?"
Both Ted O'Brien and Sarah Ferguson asked Chris Bowen why he doesn't consider lifting the nuclear ban. Both times he didn't directly reply.
To date the Minister has provided no reason why the nuclear power ban should stay in place especially in the context of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement going ahead under the government which indirectly shows an acknowledge that nuclear technology is safe and radioactive waste has a proven management record.
If you believe the ban should be lifted please sign our petition.
Monday 9th December
Chris Bowen: "We're adding more solar and wind capacity every couple of weeks than is added in nuclear capacity all year"
Whilst it is true that there is more investment in solar and wind capacity than nuclear the message is misleading.
There is a difference between investing in a GW of nuclear as compared to a GW of solar and wind due to their different generation profiles. Whilst a nuclear plant might have a capacity factor of 90%, solar and wind have capacity factors between 20-40% meaning that they don't contribute the same amount of energy to the grid reliably.
Around the world there are 63 nuclear reactors under construction with additional reactors such as Three Mile Island Unit 2 being restarted and around 50 countries looking at nuclear for the first time.
Monday 9th December
Sarah Ferguson: Small modular reactors "are not proven but happening"
Contrary to suggestions tonight from Sarah Ferguson, Small Modular Reactors are already operating around the world.
In 2020 the Akademik Lomonosov 2 entered commercial operation in Russia. In 2023, the 2 reactor Shidao Bay 1 entered commercial operation in China. More information about the progress of small modular reactor designs can be found here.
There are many companies which are investing in designs with some such as GE-Hitachi expecting to have an SMR built in the west by the end of the decade.
It is important to note the small reactors are not a new concept and are not technically infeasible. Indeed, Australia operates a 20MW research reactor, OPAL, 30km away from the Sydney CBD.
Monday 9th December 7:40pm AEDT
7:30 host Sarah Ferguson "Do you accept that CSIRO and AEMO have the expertise to make these findings"
CSIRO's own admission on their lack of nuclear knowledge reveals a glaring gap in their capabilities and the GenCost report.
When CSIRO and AEMO label nuclear as the most expensive low-emission option, they are stepping out of their depth. This contrasts starkly with global authorities like the IAEA and the proactive stance on nuclear investment at COP29, making their assertions less credible and out of touch with the international perspective on nuclear energy's role in combating climate change.
Monday 9th December
Nuclear for Australia released it's media statement on the CSIRO GenCost 2024-25 Draft Report earlier this afternoon, highlighting the following:
-
Modern Nuclear Designs Undermined
The report inflates nuclear costs by including midlife refurbishment expenses, ignoring that modern nuclear plants are designed to operate for up to 60 years without major overhauls. This outdated assumption misrepresents nuclear’s long-term cost-effectiveness. -
Extended Life Benefits Excluded
The economic advantages of nuclear plants’ extended operational life—critical for delivering decades of reliable energy—are conspicuously absent. This oversight disregards findings in the Nuclear Liftoff Report, which highlight the sustainability and efficiency of long-term nuclear investment. -
Misleading Metrics Used
The report relies heavily on Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), a flawed metric that fails to capture the total cost to household consumers. LCOE only provides a view of energy costs between production and the grid and such does not fairly represent nuclear energy's unmatched reliability and grid stability over extended periods. -
Renewable Integration Costs Not Fully Considered
Batteries are given consideration in the report (whilst they are not generators). However no reliable aggregate cost of renewables and the expanded expensive grid & batteries is given, nor compared with nuclear over a 60+ years lifetime. Costs for large-scale battery storage and transmission upgrades—essential for managing renewable intermittency—are notably absent. -
Capacity Factor Misrepresentation
Nuclear energy’s actual performance is understated. Modern nuclear plants demonstrate operate around 90% capacity factors, far surpassing the 25-35% capacity factors of wind and solar. This discrepancy distorts nuclear’s proven reliability as a baseline energy source.
Monday 9th December
Intro mentions global move towards renewables and omits any mention of nuclear power
Unfortunately the bias started with the intro. Whilst global investment in renewables was mentioned:
"Huge quantities of renewables are being to the globe's energy systems led by China. It is a race." Sarah Ferguson
There was NO mention of the global nuclear renaissance or the fact that nuclear contributes more to global electricity demand than either solar or wind.
-
32 countries have nuclear power, 50 are looking to it for the first time
-
31 countries have signed to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050
-
14 of the world's biggest banks and funds have backed nuclear
-
The worlds biggest tech companies including Meta, Amazon and Google have announced major investments in nuclear
The fact is if Australia does not act now we will fall further and further behind.
Monday 9th December
👋 Welcome!
This evening the Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen is debating Ted O'Brien on ABC's 7:30 report in a 20 minute debate.
In this fact check we'll address the claims in the debate and provide the missing context.
You can watch along here.
Do you like this post?
Related
FACTCHECK: One-Sided Four Corners Nuclear Episode
07 October 2024
Refresh for live responses from our team and Australia's best nuclear experts in response to the false claims on ABC Four Corners' 'Nuclear Gamble' episode. ...