3 ms·

> do not cover even the low end of costs to build a brand new plant in the USA To be fair, the Inflation Reduction Act Investment Tax Credits does give 30% + 1

> do not cover even the low end of costs to build a brand new plant in the USA To be fair, the Inflation Reduction Act Investment Tax Credits does give 30% + 10% + 10% off of new nuclear plants, provided certain criteria are met. https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/events-insights-news/inflation-reduction-act-expands-support-for-nuclear-power-plants.html https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/events-insights-news/inflation... As for Australia, they do intend on getting nuclear powered submarines. Their recent CSIRO GenCost report on LCoE for Australia did include nuclear. https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2024/May/CSIRO-releases-2023-24-GenCost-report https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2024/May/CSIRO-release... They came up with a capacity cost by comparing the cost of a supercritical coal plant in Korea with Australia (modulo size differences), along with an assumed lifespan of 30 years. See section 2.5 and appendix table B.10 of the GenCost report; their estimates are between 103 and 167 USD/MWh, so not a million miles away.

ZeroGravitas 2y ago
The Australian GenCost report basically ruled out nuclear as a sensible option, with an extra big question mark on the much touted Small Modular Reactors. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-the-cost-of-renewables/103868728 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-... > Building a large-scale nuclear power plant in Australia would cost at least $8.5 billion, take 15 years to deliver and produce electricity at roughly twice the cost of renewable sources, the country's leading scientific institution has found. > In a report that has for the first time compared conventional nuclear power with other options in Australia, the CSIRO concluded the technology's costs were broadly similar to gas- and black coal-fired generation with carbon capture and storage. > But the CSIRO's GenCost report noted that nuclear was still likely to be at least 50 per cent more expensive than large-scale wind and solar power backed by "firming" technologies such as batteries. > And it warned that the true costs of utility-scale nuclear were likely to be far higher still, given the major risks of cost and time-frame blowouts for a technology that had never been built in Australia before. > It said a nuclear power plant in Australia would be a "first of a kind" and, as such, "premiums of up to 100 per cent cannot be ruled out".
- chickenbig 2y ago
  > basically ruled out nuclear as a sensible option The report's conclusion has been drawn from a single comparison (USC coal in South Korea/Australia then scaling the APR-1400 cost), and they don't really show their workings. A factor of 2.8 is asserted/accepted, which does make me query the competitiveness of the Australian economy. A counterfactual would be to compare using Japan. The USC coal plant in Japan and Australia cost about the same, so nuclear would be 3963 USD/kWe (2018); exchanging for AUD (1.35 AUD/USD) and allowing for perhaps 20% inflation over that time we get 6350 AUD/kWe . Scaling up to a 1400MW plant decreases the capacity cost by 10% to 5715 AUD/kWe ( (1377MW/1152MW)^0.6 = 0.9 ). So I think there is certainly a weakness in the report's methodology; a national level decision should probably not be based on a single comparison. Getting quotes from a few builders (KEPCO, Westinghouse/Bechtel) might be a good idea before remodelling the energy system.

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

The Australian GenCost report basically ruled out nuclear as a sensible option, with an extra big question mark on the much touted Small Modular Reactors. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-the-cost-of-renewables/103868728 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-... > Building a large-scale nuclear power plant in Australia would cost at least $8.5 billion, take 15 years to deliver and produce electricity at roughly twice the cost of renewable sources, the country's leading scientific institution has found. > In a report that has for the first time compared conventional nuclear power with other options in Australia, the CSIRO concluded the technology's costs were broadly similar to gas- and black coal-fired generation with carbon capture and storage. > But the CSIRO's GenCost report noted that nuclear was still likely to be at least 50 per cent more expensive than large-scale wind and solar power backed by "firming" technologies such as batteries. > And it warned that the true costs of utility-scale nuclear were likely to be far higher still, given the major risks of cost and time-frame blowouts for a technology that had never been built in Australia before. > It said a nuclear power plant in Australia would be a "first of a kind" and, as such, "premiums of up to 100 per cent cannot be ruled out".

chickenbig 2y ago
> basically ruled out nuclear as a sensible option The report's conclusion has been drawn from a single comparison (USC coal in South Korea/Australia then scaling the APR-1400 cost), and they don't really show their workings. A factor of 2.8 is asserted/accepted, which does make me query the competitiveness of the Australian economy. A counterfactual would be to compare using Japan. The USC coal plant in Japan and Australia cost about the same, so nuclear would be 3963 USD/kWe (2018); exchanging for AUD (1.35 AUD/USD) and allowing for perhaps 20% inflation over that time we get 6350 AUD/kWe . Scaling up to a 1400MW plant decreases the capacity cost by 10% to 5715 AUD/kWe ( (1377MW/1152MW)^0.6 = 0.9 ). So I think there is certainly a weakness in the report's methodology; a national level decision should probably not be based on a single comparison. Getting quotes from a few builders (KEPCO, Westinghouse/Bechtel) might be a good idea before remodelling the energy system.