A CSIRO report again shows renewables are a far cheaper option than nuclear.

The CSIRO’s latest GenCost report has confirmed that renewable energy technologies remain Australia’s most cost-effective electricity generation option, with nuclear power projected to cost roughly twice as much. 

This assessment, part of the draft 2024-25 report, covers the financial and logistical challenges of introducing nuclear energy, even when considering its longer operational lifespan.

This annual report, created in partnership with the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), is a key resource for infrastructure planning, providing detailed updates on the costs of electricity generation, storage, and hydrogen technologies.

For the seventh consecutive year, renewable sources such as solar and wind have topped the list for cost efficiency. 

Battery storage has also shown remarkable progress, with costs dropping by 20 per cent in the past year. 

Meanwhile, large-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) capital costs declined for the second year running, falling by 8 per cent annually. 

While onshore wind saw a modest 2 per cent rise in costs due to continued pressure on equipment and installation prices, it remains a leading option.

The case for nuclear power appears less compelling. 

GenCost’s analysis found that nuclear technologies, including large-scale reactors, do not offer unique economic benefits.

“Similar cost savings can be achieved with shorter-lived technologies, including renewables, even when accounting for the need to build them twice,” said Paul Graham, GenCost’s lead author. 

This finding directly addresses claims by nuclear advocates that longer operational lifespans justify the higher upfront costs of nuclear projects. 

The report also emphasised that nuclear energy’s development timeline in Australia would likely exceed 15 years, including extensive planning, regulatory processes, and construction. 

By comparison, renewables already enjoy a robust pipeline of projects and shorter lead times, making them a more immediately viable option. 

Globally, nuclear construction times have increased to a median of 8.2 years, up from six years a decade ago. 

The challenges are particularly pronounced in democracies like Australia, where the necessary public consultation and regulatory scrutiny add to the timeline.

Capacity factor - the average time a plant operates at full capacity - further reveals nuclear’s limitations. 

In Australia, nuclear would perform at levels similar to coal, with a range of 53 to 89 per cent. This projection contrasts with the 93 per cent average achieved in the United States. According to the report, the variability reflects Australia’s energy grid and the historical performance of baseload generation like coal, which has averaged a 59 per cent capacity factor over the past decade. 

Despite the Coalition proposing a nuclear energy plan, cost estimates for the initiative remain unclear. 

With the GenCost report demonstrating the economic and logistical hurdles nuclear energy faces, the debate over its viability is set to continue. 

Consultation on the GenCost 2024-25 report is open, and will be released in the second quarter of 2025.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. CareerSpot News