https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/Art...lear-explainer
Summary:
Key points
Nuclear power does not currently provide an economically competitive solution in Australia.
Lead author of GenCost, Paul Graham, says
updated costs for a key project in the US have been found to be very high.
The costs for small modular reactors (SMRs) could improve over time, but will be too late to make a significant contribution to achieving net zero emissions.
Australia's energy landscape is at a crossroads. As the nation strives to meet its ambitious net-zero targets, the question of which energy sources will power the future looms large. A recent report by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) throws a wrench into the mix, casting doubt on the economic viability of one potential contender: nuclear power.
The CSIRO's modelling paints a stark picture. Contrary to past assumptions, the report reveals that
small nuclear reactors, once touted as a game-changer in clean energy, are no longer cost-competitive with other options. Their price tag has ballooned significantly, eclipsing the costs of established renewable energy sources like wind and solar. This economic hurdle throws a wet blanket on the nuclear dream, raising questions about its feasibility in Australia's energy mix.
The implications of the CSIRO's modelling are far-reaching. If nuclear is no longer a cost-effective option, it throws the spotlight back on renewables as the primary driver of Australia's energy transition. This will require continued investment in wind, solar, and other renewable technologies, along with robust energy storage solutions like batteries. Additionally, it underscores the need for innovation in the renewable sector to further drive down costs and improve efficiency.
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/Art...lear-explainer