Nuclear offers an answer on cost and emissions

Solar, wind, or nuclear? The new paper, prepared and circulated to MPs as a public service by engineers, canvasses the merits and costs of each option.

The standout result from modelling of Australia’s power system carried out by “engineers” is that it is possible to have our cake and eat it too on power prices and emissions — with nuclear.

The nuclear option would be slightly more expensive than the existing coal-based system, but less than half the cost of the Australian Energy Market Operator’s existing plan and less than a quarter of the cost of a 100 per cent ­renewables utopia. Going nuclear would also cut power-sector emissions by 93 per cent.

The paper, prepared and circulated to MPs as a public service by what is claimed to be “a small group of professional engineers and scientists experienced in various aspects of electricity and distribution”, is an antidote to the drumbeat that wind, solar and ­batteries hold the only answer.

The claims and costings no doubt will be challenged, but in it we have a contest of ideas.

A key issue is whether higher levels of renewable energy will make electricity cheaper, as its supporters claim. Much will ­depend on whether storage and new grid management technologies can live up to their promise and be delivered at a reasonable cost.

The engineers’ opinion is to ­reject enthusiasm and expect more of the same. They say more renewables will continue to result in the speedy destruction of coal generators on which system ­reliability now stands.

No one disputes the need to replace Australia’s ageing coal fleet.

But for the engineers, the hodgepodge of new technology solutions does not compete with the potential of a proven source of generation that will be there when it’s needed.

A striking feature of the engineering group analysis is the amount of extra renewable generation required to achieve a 100 per cent penetration.

The complexity of AMEO’s neutral case — where everyone except ­nuclear gets to play — speaks for itself.

In purely cost terms, the ­engineers estimate replacing all coal with nuclear would result in a system levelised cost of energy of $90.23 a megawatt hour.

They estimated AEMO’s Integrated System Plan would cost $247MWh and a 100 per cent ­renewable mix comprising solar PV, wind and hydro, with support from pumped storage and some battery storage, would cost $415.50.

Tempting as the analysis may be, it has some pretty dramatic hurdles to overcome. First is the ban on even considering nuclear energy.

Second is that nuclear would face the core problem that currently bedevils coal. Nuclear can be much better than coal at “load-following” intermittent renew­ables to provide power when the wind stops and sun doesn’t shine. But to get maximum efficiency, and least cost, nuclear plants would ideally sell all the power they could generate.

The present fascination with a mix of wind, solar, pumped hydro, battery storage, big new grids and complex management systems simply does not fit with a baseload solution.

Nuclear may be emissions-free but it still needs strong champions to break into the renewables club.