In Melbourne, Peter Dutton has announced that under a coalition government, seven nuclear power stations will be built across the country over the next 15 years.
Experts have stated that nuclear power would be expensive and slow to build.
But what could happen to energy prices if the Coalition won government and implemented this plan? How could we estimate the cost of nuclear power?
By 2035, it is very likely that between 50% and 60% of the existing coal-fired fleet will have been retired, including Vales Point B, Gladstone, Yallourn, Bayswater and Eraring, all of which will have passed the age of 50.
These five generators provide just over 10 gigawatts of capacity. It is probably no coincidence that Dutton's proposed seven nuclear plants would also contribute approximately 10 gigawatts in total if built. Neither my team at Monash University nor the Australian Energy Market Operator have produced modeling scenarios to delve into the details. of what could happen to electricity prices in a high nuclear absorption scenario such as the one proposed by the Coalition. That said, we can make some general assumptions based on a metric known as “levelized cost of electricity.”
This value takes into account:
How much does it cost to build a particular technology? How long does it take to build?
The cost of operating the plant.
Your lifeAnd very importantly, your capability factor.
Capacity factor is the amount of electricity a technology produces in real life, compared to its theoretical maximum output.
For example, a nuclear power plant would probably operate at 90% to 95% of its total capacity. A solar farm, on the other hand, will run at only 20-25% of its maximum, mainly because it is nighttime half the time and cloudy part of the time. CSIRO recently published its GenCost report, which outlines operating and manufacturing costs. current and projected construction for a variety of energy technologies.
It reports that large-scale nuclear-generated electricity would cost between 155 and 252 Australian dollars per megawatt-hour, falling to between 136 and 226 dollars per megawatt-hour by 2040.
The report bases these costs on recent projects in South Korea, but does not consider other cases where costs have risen dramatically. The most obvious case is the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in the United Kingdom. It was recently reported that this 3.2 GW plant, which is being built by French company EDF, now costs around £34 billion (around A$65 billion). That equates to about 20,000 Australian dollars per kilowatt.
CSIRO's GenCost report assumed a value of $8,655 per kilowatt for nuclear power, so the true levelised cost of nuclear electricity in Australia may end up being double what CSIRO has calculated.
Another factor not taken into account in GenCost's assumptions is that Australia does not have a nuclear industry. Virtually all specialized expertise would need to be imported. And very large infrastructure projects have a bad habit of skyrocketing costs: think Snowy 2.0, the Sydney light rail project and the West Gate tunnel in Victoria.
Reasons include higher wages, regulations and local standards, plus lenders' aversion to risk that increases the cost of capital. These factors would not bode well for nuclear energy.
In CSIRO's GenCost report, the levelised cost of electricity produced from coal is $100 to $200 per megawatt-hour, and that of gas is $120 to $160 per megawatt-hour. Solar and wind power cost approximately $60 and $90 per megawatt-hour, respectively. But it is not a fair comparison, since wind and solar are not “dispatchable” but rather depend on the availability of the resource. When you combine the cost of a combination of wind and solar and storage, along with the cost of carrying renewable energy to the grid, renewables end up costing between $100 and $120 per megawatt-hour, similar to coal.
If we had a nuclear-based system (supplemented by gas to meet higher demands in the mornings and evenings), costs would likely be much higher (potentially up to three or four times higher if Hinkley-like cost explosions occur Point C). (assuming the costs were passed on to electricity consumers. Otherwise, ratepayers would generally bear the burden. Either way, they're pretty much the same people.)
But what about the impact on your home's energy bill? Well, the news here is slightly better.
Typical retail rates are 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is equivalent to $250 to $300 per megawatt-hour. The most important component of your energy bill is not the cost of generating electricity; rather, it is the cost of bringing energy from power plants to your home or business.
In very rough terms, it is made up of the market average generation, transmission and distribution costs, as well as the retailer's margin and other minor costs. Transmission and distribution costs will not be significantly different in the nuclear scenario compared to the system current. And additional transmission costs associated with the more distributed nature of renewables (meaning these renewable projects are nationwide) are included in the estimate.
According to my preliminary calculations, the retail rate in the nuclear scenario could be 40 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour.
But if you are a large energy consumer, like an aluminum smelter, you will pay considerably less per kilowatt-hour because you don't incur the same grid or retail costs (but the cost of generating electricity in the first place constitutes a much larger amount). elderly). proportion of the total cost).So, if the cost of electricity generation skyrockets, the energy costs of this hypothetical aluminum smelter will skyrocket as well.
This would place a heavy cost burden on Australian industry which has traditionally relied on cheap electricity (although it has been a while since electricity could be described as cheap).
A likely increase in energy costs. In short, in a free market, it is very unlikely that nuclear energy can be competitive.
But if a future coalition government were to bring nuclear power into the mix, energy costs for residential and especially industrial customers would likely rise. (The conversation) RUP
RUP
Experts have stated that nuclear power would be expensive and slow to build.
But what could happen to energy prices if the Coalition won government and implemented this plan? How could we estimate the cost of nuclear power?
By 2035, it is very likely that between 50% and 60% of the existing coal-fired fleet will have been retired, including Vales Point B, Gladstone, Yallourn, Bayswater and Eraring, all of which will have passed the age of 50.
These five generators provide just over 10 gigawatts of capacity. It is probably no coincidence that Dutton's proposed seven nuclear plants would also contribute approximately 10 gigawatts in total if built. Neither my team at Monash University nor the Australian Energy Market Operator have produced modeling scenarios to delve into the details. of what could happen to electricity prices in a high nuclear absorption scenario such as the one proposed by the Coalition. That said, we can make some general assumptions based on a metric known as “levelized cost of electricity.”
This value takes into account:
How much does it cost to build a particular technology? How long does it take to build?
The cost of operating the plant.
Your lifeAnd very importantly, your capability factor.
Capacity factor is the amount of electricity a technology produces in real life, compared to its theoretical maximum output.
For example, a nuclear power plant would probably operate at 90% to 95% of its total capacity. A solar farm, on the other hand, will run at only 20-25% of its maximum, mainly because it is nighttime half the time and cloudy part of the time. CSIRO recently published its GenCost report, which outlines operating and manufacturing costs. current and projected construction for a variety of energy technologies.
It reports that large-scale nuclear-generated electricity would cost between 155 and 252 Australian dollars per megawatt-hour, falling to between 136 and 226 dollars per megawatt-hour by 2040.
The report bases these costs on recent projects in South Korea, but does not consider other cases where costs have risen dramatically. The most obvious case is the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in the United Kingdom. It was recently reported that this 3.2 GW plant, which is being built by French company EDF, now costs around £34 billion (around A$65 billion). That equates to about 20,000 Australian dollars per kilowatt.
CSIRO's GenCost report assumed a value of $8,655 per kilowatt for nuclear power, so the true levelised cost of nuclear electricity in Australia may end up being double what CSIRO has calculated.
Another factor not taken into account in GenCost's assumptions is that Australia does not have a nuclear industry. Virtually all specialized expertise would need to be imported. And very large infrastructure projects have a bad habit of skyrocketing costs: think Snowy 2.0, the Sydney light rail project and the West Gate tunnel in Victoria.
Reasons include higher wages, regulations and local standards, plus lenders' aversion to risk that increases the cost of capital. These factors would not bode well for nuclear energy.
In CSIRO's GenCost report, the levelised cost of electricity produced from coal is $100 to $200 per megawatt-hour, and that of gas is $120 to $160 per megawatt-hour. Solar and wind power cost approximately $60 and $90 per megawatt-hour, respectively. But it is not a fair comparison, since wind and solar are not “dispatchable” but rather depend on the availability of the resource. When you combine the cost of a combination of wind and solar and storage, along with the cost of carrying renewable energy to the grid, renewables end up costing between $100 and $120 per megawatt-hour, similar to coal.
If we had a nuclear-based system (supplemented by gas to meet higher demands in the mornings and evenings), costs would likely be much higher (potentially up to three or four times higher if Hinkley-like cost explosions occur Point C). (assuming the costs were passed on to electricity consumers. Otherwise, ratepayers would generally bear the burden. Either way, they're pretty much the same people.)
But what about the impact on your home's energy bill? Well, the news here is slightly better.
Typical retail rates are 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is equivalent to $250 to $300 per megawatt-hour. The most important component of your energy bill is not the cost of generating electricity; rather, it is the cost of bringing energy from power plants to your home or business.
In very rough terms, it is made up of the market average generation, transmission and distribution costs, as well as the retailer's margin and other minor costs. Transmission and distribution costs will not be significantly different in the nuclear scenario compared to the system current. And additional transmission costs associated with the more distributed nature of renewables (meaning these renewable projects are nationwide) are included in the estimate.
According to my preliminary calculations, the retail rate in the nuclear scenario could be 40 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour.
But if you are a large energy consumer, like an aluminum smelter, you will pay considerably less per kilowatt-hour because you don't incur the same grid or retail costs (but the cost of generating electricity in the first place constitutes a much larger amount). elderly). proportion of the total cost).So, if the cost of electricity generation skyrockets, the energy costs of this hypothetical aluminum smelter will skyrocket as well.
This would place a heavy cost burden on Australian industry which has traditionally relied on cheap electricity (although it has been a while since electricity could be described as cheap).
A likely increase in energy costs. In short, in a free market, it is very unlikely that nuclear energy can be competitive.
But if a future coalition government were to bring nuclear power into the mix, energy costs for residential and especially industrial customers would likely rise. (The conversation) RUP
RUP
