CSIRO runs ruler over large scale nuclear power

A large-scale nuclear plant would take at least 15 years and about $8.6bn to build, but produce electricity substantially more cheaply than small-scale reactors, according to the nation’s peak science body.

The Bugey nuclear power plant in Bugey in eastern France. Picture: AFP

A large-scale nuclear plant would take at least 15 years and about $8.6bn to build but would produce electricity substantially more cheaply than small-scale reactors promoted by many ­advocates, according to the CSIRO’s annual report on the relative cost of generating electricity from different sources.

The latest GenCost report shows renewable wind and solar PV, with firming, remain among the cheapest forms of electricity now and into the future, and for the first time includes an analysis of both small and large nuclear reactors.

Assuming an 80 per cent share of renewable energy, a newly installed mix of wind and solar were estimated to generate a megawatt hour of electricity at $98 to $139 in 2023 – including the billions of dollars spent on building green energy infrastructure in the preceding years – and $83 to $120 in 2030. This compared with between $88-$141 per MWh for black coal in 2030, and $79-$136 for gas-fired power.

Lead author Paul Graham, chief economist at CSIRO’s energy unit, said the research was an easily understood, quick guide to the relative competitiveness of energy options in a net zero world. “We’re still finding solar PV and wind, with firming, is the lowest cost range,” Mr Graham said. “You can argue both coal and gas are pretty close. But I guess the issue is that it’s not consistent with our net zero by 2050 goal to keep building those. So the main competitors for solar PV and wind are the other remaining technologies: coal and gas with carbon capture and storage, and small and large scale nuclear.”

The CSIRO said it received an unusually large number of submissions in response to its draft report in December, predominantly from private individuals asking for more information on the relative cost of nuclear power.

While the CSIRO did not expect nuclear power plants to be built before 2040, for comparison sake it estimated cost per megawatt hour for a small modular ­nuclear plant by the end of the decade at $230-$382, or roughly three times the cost of renewables. Large-scale nuclear power was more competitive, however, at $141-$233.

The CSIRO warned there were large unknowns in building a large nuclear plant for the first time, and costs and timelines could easily end up double the ­estimates. It based its estimates for the construction of a 1000MW nuclear power plant on South Korea, before almost tripling the costs to account for Australia’s higher costs and the starting of a new industry entirely from scratch.

“The reason why Australia has more of a renewable development pipeline compared to other countries is because of our unique access to land and high quality renewable resources. So it just reflects differences between countries, and each country is going to find their own least-cost path,” Mr Graham said.

Tony Wood, director of the Grattan Institute’s energy program, said a shortcoming of the GenCost analysis was that it didn’t account for the overall and different system costs associated with different shares of renewable energy in the overall power mix. Mr Wood said the ban on nuclear energy was “silly”, but that overturning it didn’t mean we should immediately begin ­developing the technology.

“I don’t see how it can contribute in the next 10 years, but say we get further down the track and, let’s say, people do crack the nut of small modular reactors, then that could be interesting at a 80-90 per cent renewable share,” he said.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen said the CSIRO’s analysis backed Labor’s plan to invest in renewable energy as the cheapest and cleanest source of new energy for Australians, and attacked Peter Dutton’s support for building costly nuclear power plants.