CSIRO’s GenCost report finds no benefit to longer-life nuclear power

The CSIRO has stepped up its attack on the price of Peter Dutton’s nuclear ambition, claiming the cost of large-scale power plants far exceeds firmed renewables over the long term.

The latest GenCost reports suggests the long operational life of large-scale nuclear power plants provides no material financial benefit over shorter life renewables.

The CSIRO has stepped up its attack on the price of Peter Dutton’s nuclear ambition, claiming the cost of large-scale power plants far exceeds firmed renewables over the long term, even if solar and wind farms are completely rebuilt every 25 or 30 years.

In its draft annual GenCost report released on Monday, the agency finds the longer operational life of a large-scale nuclear facility “provides no major financial benefit to electricity customers” when compared to shorter-lived technologies such as solar and wind, due to the significant refurbishment costs needed to maintain a nuclear facility over 60-plus years.

The findings come as Opposition Leader Peter Dutton prepares to release costings for the federal opposition’s seven proposed nuclear power plants this week, declaring “the time for nuclear energy in Australia has come”.

The opposition and other nuclear advocates slammed the previous GenCost figures, which were modelled over a 30-year time frame, claiming that was a flawed assumption, and that nuclear facilities were designed to operate for a much longer period of more than 60 years.

However, in its latest report, the CSIRO suggests the cost benefits of extending the modelling from 30 to 60 years are only marginally greater for nuclear than renewables.

It suggests the cost of a nuclear plant to consumers over a 60-year time frame would be $136-$222 per megawatt hour – 9 per cent lower than the previous 30-year assumption.

A 60-year solar project, including a complete rebuild after 30 years, is estimated to cost consumers $40-$68/MWh – a 7 per cent reduction relative to a single 30-year project – while a 50-year wind farm, including a rebuild after 25 years, is estimated to cost consumers $65-$108/MWh – also 7 per cent lower than a 25-year scenario.

“Our finding is that there are no unique cost advantages arising from nuclear technology’s long operational life,” the report says.

“Substantial refurbishment costs are required, and without this new investment nuclear cannot achieve safe long operational life.

“When renewables are completely rebuilt to achieve a similar project life to nuclear, they are rebuilt at significantly lower cost due to ongoing technological improvements, whereas large-scale nuclear technology costs are not improving to any significant extent owing to their maturity.

“Long-term operation of ­nuclear is not costless. Extension costs are incurred and are ­significant.”

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. Picture: Caroline Tan

Energy Minister Chris Bowen. Picture: Eventive Photography

Mr Dutton confirmed on Sunday that the opposition would release costings for its nuclear plan in the coming days, arguing “renewables and nuclear as companions” are better for the country than the government’s “renewables-only fantasy”.

“We need a balanced energy mix with renewables backed by stable baseload power to underpin a strong economy – and it is precisely why major countries like the US, UK, France, Japan and Canada are expanding their investments in nuclear energy. Australia is the outlier here,” he wrote in an opinion piece published in News Corp papers on Sunday.

“The cost of nuclear plants can be spread over a reactor’s 80-year lifespan, whereas under Labor’s renewables-only plan, every solar panel and wind turbine will need to be replaced three to four times over the same period.”

Based on an International Energy Agency report, the CSIRO estimates the investment needed to extend the life of a nuclear facility from 40 years to 60 years at $2765 per kilowatt – almost a third of the upfront cost of building the plant.

GenCost has been released each year since 2018, and has consistently found nuclear is the most expensive form of energy.

In May it included, for the first time, estimated costings for a large-scale nuclear plant. It said the such scale facility in Australia would cost more than $17bn and take at least 15 years to build, given the nation has no expertise in building and maintaining nuclear power and related infrastructure.

Today’s report estimates that once a mature nuclear industry is established, a single large-scale nuclear plant – with 1 gigawatt capacity – would cost more than $8.9bn, up from earlier estimates of $8.6bn.

The federal opposition and nuclear advocates have demanded the CSIRO re-run its modelling, claiming there are a number of flawed assumptions.

They argue modern nuclear power plants could run for above 90 per cent of their capacity – much higher than the 53-89 per cent modelled by the CSIRO – and that the first plant could be built much sooner than the 2040 timeline envisaged.

The latest update rejects those arguments, claiming the capacity assumption remained accurate based on “verifiable data and consideration of Australia’s unique electricity generation sector”, while reaffirming the CSIRO’s position that it would take at least 15 years to build the first plant, based on the experience in other countries and the increase in nuclear construction times over recent years.

Labor seized on the latest findings, with Energy Minister Chris Bowen saying it proved nuclear power was “not a serious solution to keep the lights on and bring prices down this year, or this decade”.

“The latest GenCost confirms what our energy experts have been saying for a long time: the most affordable path to deliver reliable energy in the future is with new renewable generation and storage, firmed by gas and pumped hydro.”

GenCost is produced annually to update estimated costs of new electricity generation and storage assets in Australia, and informs AEMO’s Integrated System Plan.

The latest report says that while inflationary pressures are continuing to ease, the varying impact on raw materials and supply chain costs are delivering mixed results across technologies.

According to the report, the capital cost of building large-scale solar has fallen by 8 per cent for a second consecutive year, while the cost of large-scale batteries recorded the largest annual reduction, with capital costs falling by 20 per cent.

Meanwhile onshore wind generation costs increased 2 per cent, and gas turbine costs increased by 11 per cent due to the new requirement of being ‘hydrogen ready’.

The draft GenCost report is open for consultation until February 11, with a final report due in second quarter of 2025.

Originally published as CSIRO’s GenCost report finds no benefit to longer-life nuclear power