Comment by Peter Roberts
I was at lunch the other day and out came the familiar theme – Australia should go nuclear to de-carbonise the economy.
Well, a just-released report from the NSW Parliament’s State Development Committee should put an end to such talk – it is just too expensive and problematic.
The report, detailed in Channel 9 media, found the cost of the two reactors being built in the US is now thought to be between $20.4 billion and $22.6 billion for each reactor.
In the UK the cost of two reactors being build has jumped seven-fold to $25.9 billion each.
And those being built in France and Finland are now costed at upwards of $17.7 billion each.
Cost over-runs and delays mean that big nuclear power plants are only going to be built where there are massive government subsidies.
And this is even before factoring in the cost of the odd Fukushima or Chernobyl.
This morning on social media the pro-nuclear trolls were out in force – people are living happily now at Chernobyl one said.
Well I vsisited Chernobyl 18 months ago and there is nothing normal about it.
Maintaining the remains of the reactors at Chernobyl consumes 10 per cent of Ukraine’s admittedly modest GDP, and the long term effects of radiation continue to be felt.
This is why nuclear proponents now talk about snazzy new small reactors which are going to be the next big thing.
The same story is unfolding in small reactor construction as large – cost over-runs, very few small reactors actually under construction, and the need for massive, yes there’s that word again, government subsidies.
We already know what the answer to our carbon crisis is – renewables. Wind and solar plus storage is already cheaper and getting cheaper every day.
The future is not nuclear.
Picture: ANSTO/Australia’s research reactor
Subscribe to our free @AuManufacturing newsletter here.
yes, but nuclear is not “low carbon”.
What is the g/kWh number for nuclear ?
Back in 2012, Ben Heard and Adelaide Uni were saying zero.
(I protested vigorously at the time).
Back in 2016, Alan Finkel was saying zero (and not just zero carbon, Finkel said “zero emissions” also denying thermal and radioactive poisons emissions).
(I protested at the time).
Nowadays the industry line is 12.
Reality says maybe 66, maybe 250, maybe 280, even higher when the high quality uranium ore runs out – and these numbers do not include the carbon footprint of Fukushima 2011 to present and Chernobyl 1986 to present and many other catastrophes – these numbers also do not include the costs of Monju, Superphénix, Westinghouse and many other failures.
In a 2008 report, Sovacool screened 103 lifecycle studies of greenhouse emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle to identify the most current, original, and transparent studies.
He found that the mean value from those studies was 66 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour (gCO2e/kWh), with the much higher figure of 288 being credible to Sovacool (and much more real, in my view).
Sovacool’s paper provides the following figures (gCO2e/kWh):
Wind 9−10
Hydro 10−13
Biogas 11
Solar thermal 13
Biomass 14−31
Solar PV 32
Biomass 35−41
Geothermal 38
Nuclear 66
Natural gas 443
Diesel 778
Heavy oil 778
Coal 960−1050
Sovacool stated in 2008: “Offshore wind power has less than one-seventh the carbon equivalent emissions of nuclear plants; large-scale hydropower, onshore wind, and biogas, about one-sixth the emissions; small-scale hydroelectric and solar thermal one-fifth. This makes these renewable energy technologies seven-, six-, and five-times more effective on a per kWh basis at fighting climate change. Policymakers would be wise to embrace these more environmentally friendly technologies if they are serious about producing electricity and mitigating climate change.”
See the report at https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1006/ML100601133.pdf .
Since 2008, wind power costs have dropped dramatically reflecting reduced carbon footprint for that technology.
Since 2008, solar PV costs have dropped even more dramatically reflecting a much reduced carbon footprint for Solar PV.