9 ms·
Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, report finds
- darth_avocado 3y ago*For Australia
- henrikschroder 3y ago> Paul Graham, CSIRO chief energy economist and lead author of the report, Is there anything pg can't do?!?
- loandbehold 3y agoI assume it's a different Paul Graham?
- henrikschroder 3y agothatsthejoke.jpg
- thelastgallon 3y ago"It says most new-build technologies, like renewables, can enter an electricity system and provide reliable power by relying on existing capacity already deployed, but as their share increases, which forces the retirement of existing flexible capacity, the system will find it increasingly difficult to provide reliable power supply without additional investment. To address that issue, the report calculates the additional cost of making variable renewables reliable at shares of 60, 70, 80, and 90 per cent of the system (the extra "integration costs" consist mainly of new storage and transmission costs). The report found even when those integration costs were taken into account, the cost range for variable renewables was still the lowest of all new-build technologies in 2023 and 2030."
- mensetmanusman 3y agoWhy wouldn't they compare an 100% equivalent solar+storage to nuclear on a cost per GW basis? Or, will this comparison be in the report? Eg a 2 GW Nuclear compared to 2GW Solar + (2+X GW storage to account for charge times and full non sunlight utilization per geography)
- theptip 3y agoIt’s not straightforward. What is your “X”? Duck curve shifting within the day? Or seasonal storage to account for a no-sun / no- wind black swan week like they had in Germany recently? If you are just interested in intra-day shift, then battery+solar is already being widely deployed (in a pretty under-reported way IMO). Seasonal is way harder, I think smart grid / demand-side automation could actually be the key to resolving outlier events rather than building mostly-unused peaker plants.
- micromacrofoot 3y agoI might be misreading but maybe because 100% isn't possible? "Mind you, the integrated system plan was released last week and it did emphasise that although it is likely to be a renewable future, we'll still need gas as a supporting technology." Even ignoring times without sunlight they're nowhere close to full renewable saturation anyway (no one is), so considering it's cheaper for the bulk of use it seems like the prudent investment.
- Manuel_D 3y agoOne, it's not just an issue of 12 hours for diurnal storage. There's also seasonal fluctuations, where weather is drastically reducing output for weeks or more at a time. Second, the US is averaging total storage costs of over $500/KWh [1]. So 12 hours of storage for 2 GWH (total, 24 GWh) would work out to 12 billion dollars. And this storage needs to be replaced every 10-15 years. Estimates don't include storage because it's incredibly expensive. Renewables are cheap when they're supplementing a primarily fossil fuel grid (or hydro), but they're incredibly expensive as a primary source energy. But they're the cheapest short term carbon reductions, so naturally that's what politics rewards. 1. https://www.poweradvisoryllc.com/reports/battery-systems-5-mw-begin-capturing-new-york-vder-revenue#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20NYSERDA%20reported%20that,22%25%20increase%20in%20total%20costs https://www.poweradvisoryllc.com/reports/battery-systems-5-m....
- alejohausner 3y agoAlthough this is about costs in Australia, the article cites a recent decision by a group of towns in Utah, who abandoned a small-scale nuclear energy project, because it was much more expensive than solar[1]. 1:https://www.sltrib.com/news/2023/11/09/utah-cities-abandon-their-decade/ https://www.sltrib.com/news/2023/11/09/utah-cities-abandon-t...
- pfdietz 3y agoIt's also more expensive that geothermal, which that region can have in abundance.
- fallingknife 3y agoIf you are like me and think "but does that include storage?" every time you hear about cost of renewables, this does: > electricity generated by solar and on-shore wind projects is the cheapest for Australia, even when accounting for the costs of keeping the power grid reliable while they're integrated into the system in greater proportions over time.
- legitster 3y ago> GenCost has been advised by stakeholders that small modular reactors are the appropriate size nuclear technology for Australia. Australia’s state electricity grids are relatively small compared to the rest of the world and planned maintenance or unplanned outages of large-scale nuclear generation would create a large contingent event of a gigawatt or more that other plants would find challenging to address. > In the present system, it would take two or more generation units to provide that role. As such, large-scale nuclear plants which are currently lower cost than nuclear SMR, may not be an option for Australia, unless rolled out as a fleet that supports each other - which represents a much larger investment proposition. > The second issue is that observations of low cost nuclear overseas may in some cases be referring to projects which were either originally funded by governments or whose capital costs have already been recovered. Such prices will not be available to countries that do not have existing nuclear generation such as Australia.
- pfdietz 3y agoOne of the dishonesties you see from nuclear fans is claiming nuclear is cheap because the operatings costs are low. This is somewhat valid if you're talking about continuing to operate existing plants, but unless you're given new NPPs for free by the Nuclear Fairy, it doesn't apply to new construction.
- stop50 3y agoAnd don't forget the waste. It needs security and are attractive targets
- callalex 3y agoHow do you collect and store the waste from solar+natural gas?
- pfdietz 3y agoWaste from solar? Just handle it like you'll be handling the much larger volumes of ordinary waste from all industrial activity. It's not like solar is creating some distinctly different category of waste like nuclear does.
- feedsmgmt 3y agoPeople focus so much on "cost" and "profit" that it seems to lead to short sighted decision making.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y agoThe whole value proposition of nuclear rests on cost because it is a pollutant too, so what would be your basis if not that
- _cenw 3y agoSpent fuel is a very different pollutant, one that at worst destroys local ecosystems (global impact with fossil) and the hard to handle stuff exists in quite limited quantities. Yes, it's pretty hard to put it somewhere nobody touches it, but it's not like we don't already need to find a solution to that problem.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago"Very different pollutant" is being pedantic. The point is that radioactive water is an output of nuclear reactors.
- _cenw 3y agoI was actually talking about spent fuel rods, the kind you put in concrete casks (and yet they will outlive those). Because that's the stuff that will stay dangerous for time beyond human comprehension. Radioactive water is not usually a concern. There are heat exchangers between an inner loop with a very small amount of water that is radioactive (but not forever or highly radioactive) and an outer loop with just... seawater. Maybe you're thinking about Fukushima, where they dumped a lot of water on an open core?
- Turing_Machine 3y agoYou do understand that producing zillions of square km of semiconductor and zillions of metric tons of batteries isn't going to exactly be environmentally benign, right?
- jboydyhacker 3y agoIf you increase regulation so the time and cost to build a nuclear plant is impossible...then yeah everything else is way cheaper. Not exactly brkeaking news.
- tuetuopay 3y agoDon't forget green subsidies on renewables that make them even cheaper.
- bryanlarsen 3y agoGreen subsidies are peanuts compared to the subsidies that nuclear gets. Half of the DoE budget is nuclear subsidies, and not being responsible for decomissioning/cleanup amounts to a massive subsidy.
- Manuel_D 3y agoNot even remotely true. Renewable account for 59% of subsidies. Nuclear, 1%. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_Unit...
- nemo 3y agoThe person you were replying to and the article you posted both make a point you're not addressing: >Critics allege that the most important subsidies to the nuclear industry have not involved cash payments, but rather the shifting of construction costs and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers, burdening them with an array of risks including cost overruns, defaults to accidents, and nuclear waste management. Critics claim that this approach distorts market choices, which they believe would otherwise favor less risky energy investments.[15]
- Manuel_D 3y ago"shifting construction costs to ratepayers" is done for pretty much all energy projects. This is like saying gasoline refineries shift their costs to people buying gas at the pump. Waste management is a total red herring. The total amount of waste the US nuclear power industry has produced fits in a volume the footprint of a football fields and 10 yards high [1]. Nuclear power plants have to pay the cost of their nuclear waste disposal up front, it's already internalized into their costs. We already have nuclear waste facilities dug into bedrock, their actual use is being held up by political posturing. 1. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...
- llsf 3y agoIs comparing nuclear and renewable like apples and oranges ? One can run anytime, and the other depends on weather, time of day. If we only had renewable the price of electricity would go up at night, when there is no sun or wind. Unless to compare the GWh they included batteries for renewable, it is difficult to compare to nuclear.
- merpnderp 3y agoThere is a reason China has 16 nuclear plants under construction, with plans to start many more, even though they have access to some of the cheapest wind and solar power in the world.
- adrianN 3y agoYeah, they need a nuclear industry to build nuclear weapons, just like France.
- merpnderp 3y agoI was wondering if you're aware that China possesses nuclear weapons and the reactors needed to produce more. Also, do you believe that all nuclear reactors function identically, being used for both power generation and weapon creation? And about France, what are your thoughts on their nuclear policies? Do you feel they are continuously producing weapons, or is there just a misunderstanding about nuclear power as a political issue leading to snap judgments?
- adrianN 3y agoIf you want nuclear weapons it's a good idea to have a nuclear industry so that you have engineers familiar with the relevant technology. I'm not implying that (all) nuclear power plants are weapons factories.
- dieortin 3y agoWho says there is no wind at night?
- ZeroGravitas 3y agoThe headline was already known, the news element of this is that they've projected that even as the renewable rollout continues, and the percentage of renewables approaches 100%, that renewables continue to be the cheapest option
- milar 3y agoi mean of course, because of ridiculous regulation and process.
- WaitWaitWha 3y agoFrom the article: > The GenCost report is published every year by the CSIRO and AEMO (the Australian Energy Market Operator). List of AEMO member: https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/files/about_aemo/board_and_governance/aemo--industry-member-list-december-2023.pdf?la=en https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/files/about_aemo/board_and_g... Of the 102 on the list at least 27 are clearly renewable oriented (using regex (wind|solar|sun|gas|hydro|water)).
- zozbot234 3y agoThe relevant factor is whether it's more expensive than peaker gas plants. Because that's how you get energy when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. And no, battery storage - or any storage other than pumped hydro, which is already in heavy use - is a drop in the bucket; it doesn't even come close to covering serious shortfalls.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoNuclear is not a replacement for peaker plants. They have to run continuously just to reach their already abysmal economics.
- _cenw 3y agoNot being able to scale to zero doesn't mean you can't scale at all. France fulfills essentially all their dynamic demand with nuclear.
- bjornsing 3y agoWhich makes the whole equation very interesting. Here in Sweden the electricity spot price is often zero or even negative when it’s windy. So what’s the point of more “cheap” kWhs at those times? I think we should just stop doing these $/kWh calculations and instead compare various production (and storage) mixes that can actually meet demand.
- anonporridge 3y agoThis is also an important problem that might start showing up with energy overabundance. If we too regularly have these periods of 0 or negative electricity prices, the economics of supporting the infrastructure collapses. Projects go bankrupt and generators get abandoned to fall into disrepair. I suspect that like modern individuals now struggle with unintended consequences of calorie abundance, civilization will also struggle with unintended consequences of electricity abundance.
- greedo 3y ago
- dragoncrab 3y agoThe title is misleading. Only the fairly new and surprisingly expensive SMRs were taken into account, the much cheaper traditional nuclear power plants weren't. Which could be fine, but then don't generalise your findings across the entire nuclear landscape.
- tomatotomato37 3y agoThe economics of traditional plants are even worse. They're complicated to build, they take forever to throttle, they need a ridiculous amount of auxillary cooling infrastructure due to crap throttling, and their thermal efficiency is below even fossil fuels since they can't run superheated without making the reactor even more of a maintenance nightmare
- p1mrx 3y agoThe title should say "nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables and fossil methane", based on these quotes: > the report calculates the additional cost of making variable renewables reliable at shares of 60, 70, 80, and 90 per cent of the system > we'll still need gas as a supporting technology So this is unsurprising. Fossil fuels provide cheap reliability if you ignore the atmospheric cleanup cost.
- OneDonOne 3y agoIf any of this is true: 1. Why haven't renewable solutions solved Germany's energy crisis? 2. Why didn't Germany experience its current problems while its nuke pants were operating? 3. Why has Germany been opening dirty lignite mines instead of just applying Gigawatts of renewables? Something is not right I think.
- lasermike026 3y agoWe need nuclear for the baseload that doesn't dump CO2 into the atmosphere. This is the way.
- derefr 3y agoFor anyone who didn't notice: the CSIRO report above is specifically about the relative marginal costs of building nuclear vs. renewables in Australia. Australia is in a pretty unique position, energy-wise. I wouldn't attempt to generalize the findings in this report to any other country. On the nuclear-power side: Australia does have uranium ore deposits of their own. These are currently exported to partner nations. But Australia doesn't currently have any uranium refinement capability. Australia is not a "nuclear nation." Building up such a domestic capability would have large capital costs, and large ongoing operational costs. On the renewables side: one thing Australia has tons and tons of, is "land with low property values for renewable energy generation to live on." Consider: • A majority of Australia is nearly-empty "outback." While some of this can be used for farming, most of it is inhospitable even to that use-case. Much of it is hot near-desert conditions, getting tons of sunlight throughout the year — so solar farms are super-effective here. (There is already a huge one in production, feeding energy to Papua New Guinea: https://www.power-technology.com/data-insights/power-plant-profile-hiri-solar-farm-papua-new-guinea/?cf-view https://www.power-technology.com/data-insights/power-plant-p...). And unlike hypothetical proposals to cover the Sahara in solar, the Australian outback is also "close enough" to power demand that it's economical both to visit these farms to regularly to maintain the panels, and to run and regularly mantain HV power lines to deliver the power. • Because there is so little mountainous terrain in Australia (just lowlands and higher plateaus), Australia as a whole also has high levels of predictable, directional wind — perfect for wind power generation. Same arguments apply for building wind farms as for building solar farms. Put them where nobody's going to compete for the land — probably also in the outback. • A large part of the Australian coastline is also unpopulated, and undesirable to either population or shipping — being flat stretches of rocky shore without inlets to encourage make commercial/industrial use. This sort of environment, however, is highly economical for wave-power generation!
- byyll 3y agoI don't get how a report can find. A report is something you write after the findings.