CSIRO’s maths designed to delegitimise nuclear option

Renewable energy adherents know the best way to make the exorbitant costs of their plans look reasonable is to paint the alternatives in the worst possible light. In this regard, the latest CSIRO GenCost 2023 report into the cost of the various forms of energy on offer delivers for the wind and solar industry, and Chris Bowen, in spades. The nation’s top scientific advisory body has used its complex modelling to double down on the claim that intermittent renewables are the cheapest option, even if the cost of backing them up when the weather does not co-operate is included. Unlike its report last year, the CSIRO has brought to account the cost of transmission lines, pumped hydro and other enabling projects prior to 2030. This makes the cost of deploying renewables 40 to 60 per cent higher in 2023 than in 2030, but still cheaper than the alternatives, assuming they can be delivered.

Fossil fuel assets are penalised through the inclusion of internationally based carbon taxes and financing imposts. But the big assault in the GenCost report has been on nuclear, a passion issue for the federal opposition and clear target for Mr Bowen and the federal government, which has refused to join global peers in a push to refine and deploy the proven low-emissions technology. The US, Britain and other key allies have set a target to ­triple the amount of installed nuclear power capacity globally by 2050.

The CSIRO has used the cost blowout of a single small-scale nuclear reactor proposal in the United States to effectively delegitimise nuclear power as an option for Australia, despite conceding the cost curve for nuclear drops dramatically as small nuclear reactors potentially move from the bench top to mass production globally over coming decades. For now, the CSIRO is taking the inflation-impacted price of $31,100/kW for the now shelved NuScale plant in the US, a cost increase of 70 per cent over previous estimates. The CSIRO says while there are completed SMR projects in Russia and China, “these were 100 per cent government-funded rather than commercial projects, which makes it difficult to ascertain what their costs would be in a market setting”.

Large-scale nuclear projects, which have delivered cheaper outcomes for some countries, were ruled out for Australia because “planned maintenance or unplanned outages of large-scale nuclear generation would create a large contingent event of a gigawatt or more that other plant would find challenging to address”. In summary, CSIRO said, given overseas nuclear electricity costs may be referring to technology that is not appropriate for Australia, or assets that are not seeking to recover costs equivalent to a commercial new-build nuclear plant, there may be no meaningful comparison that can be made to Australia’s circumstances, which is the focus of GenCost.

Mr Bowen no doubt will use the CSIRO report to further lock the nation into a renewable energy future that will require a large number of widely dispersed assets, with all the environmental and community disruption that that involves. He must not lose sight of the main objective, which is to have a reliable energy supply upon which households and industry can depend. Part of this involves making sure businesses have the necessary financial incentives to invest. Power companies are pushing back on how government sets the maximum rate for hard-pressed electricity users. If Mr Bowen wants to claim he is on the side of households, here is his chance to prove it.