Nuclear experts call for $600bn nuclear figure to be scrapped

"$600 billion pricetag"

The $600bn price tag for nuclear power is disinformation. 

It's a dodgy calculation from the Smart Energy Council to deceive the public as part of the ongoing nuclear fear campaign. 

They took the cost of the most expensive nuclear power project ever (Hinkley Point C), extrapolated it and then doubled it. 

Calculation: 

3.2 GW for $87 billion AUD, multiplied by 3.4375 to get to 11GW for $299.0625 billion AUD and then doubled to get to approx $600 billion AUD.

Source: https://smartenergy.org.au/nuclear-fallout-116-600-billion-to-build-7-nuclear-reactors/

Issues:

• Takes the cost of the very worst case scenario and doubles it
• Assumes a capital cost per GW of $54.5 billion roughly 6 times more than even the CSIRO (roughly $9 billion per GW) 
• The basic extrapolation does not factor in a fleet effect assuming each reactor will cost the same as the last. A real world example is that Vogtle Unit 4 was approximately 20% cheaper than Unit 3 in the United States
• The 'Smart Energy Council' is not a reputable source

Analysis from Dr Robert Barr:

"4% of the grid"

The 4% figure is designed to mislead the public. 

It is also from the Smart Energy Council. It deliberately ignores the difference between capacity and generation to imply nuclear power won't make a meaningful contribution to Australia's grid. 

In reality, nuclear power is the most reliable energy source and contributes to an average of 20% of electricity in advanced economies. For example, roughly half of America's clean energy comes from nuclear power. 

Calculation:

11 GW of nuclear capacity (arbitrary number) divided by 300GW of renewable capacity (ISP assumption for 2050) to get to approx 3.7%

Issues:

• Confuses capacity with generation: 1GW of nuclear capacity will generate roughly 3x more electricity for the grid than 1GW of renewable capacity due to capacity factor

Analysis from Dr Robert Barr:

"20 years to build"

Calculation:

• A reputable source for this figure can't be determined

Issues:

• Ignores expert advice from the IAEA that it takes 10-15 years for new to nuclear countries to establish a nuclear power industry
• Experts such as nuclear lawyers Kirsty Brayon and Helen Cook have estimated Australia could have nuclear in as little as 11 and 10 years respectively
• MIT nuclear expert Professor Jacopo Buongiorno has said Australia could have nuclear in under 12 years (Source)
• Australia has a head start on nuclear since we're already a nuclear nation. We have a nuclear regulator (ARPANSA), decades of reactor experience (Lucas Heights), radioactive waste management solutions, a developing nuclear skilled workforce (AUKUS) and the most uranium in the world

Quotes

Comment from Past National President of the Electric Energy Society of Australia, Dr Robert Barr:

"The Smart Energy Council (SEC) detailed analysis fails the common sense test on many levels. Capital Costs are over estimated by a factor of 6.1 compared to CSIRO GenCost numbers while only 14% of the electricity generated by nuclear is counted in their analysis.
In addition, the SEC economic analysis fails to take into account the long life of nuclear power plants and their low operating costs. Evaluating the impact of asset lives and operating costs are essential elements in undertaking any serious analysis of all generation mixes."

Comment from the Head of the Nuclear Law Program at the University of Adelaide, Kirsty Braybon: 

"The idea that nuclear power plants take 20 years to build is outdated and misleading. Globally, the average construction time is just 7.5 years—and countries like South Korea and China are consistently delivering reactors in five to six. Even Australia’s OPAL reactor—a first-of-its-kind facility—was completed in just nine years, with actual construction taking only four years and four months. With the right planning and proven technology, nuclear isn’t a distant ambition—it’s a viable solution within a decade." Kirsty Braybon, Head of the Nuclear Law Program at the University of Adelaide

Comment from Nuclear for Australia founder Will Shackel:

"These numbers have been repeated by the Prime Minister down and in hundreds of ads as part of an attempt to deceive the public about nuclear. Nuclear for Australia calls for a bipartisan approach to nuclear power and for the fear campaign to be scrapped."