Mikko2,

I have no idea what Labor have said on the issue. Nor do I care. All I have done is correct the inaccuracies in the article

The $1.3 to $1.5 trillion estimate for transitioning to renewable energy from Net Zero Australia reflects significant upfront costs. However, this must be seen in the context of long-term savings and benefits. The IRENA reports that the cost of electricity from utility-scale solar photovoltaics has decreased by around 82% since 2010, making it highly competitive. These cost reductions continue to outpace traditional and nuclear energy.

Solar panels and wind turbines have lifespans of 20-25 years, but advancements in recycling technology are addressing disposal issues. New methods are being developed to handle the end-of-life of these components. The modular nature of renewable installations allows for phased replacements, minimising disruptions and costs over time.

The safety record of nuclear power in places like Lucas Heights and France is commendable, but potential risks, although low, are high-impact, as shown by the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. Long-term storage of radioactive waste remains a significant challenge. Renewables do not carry these high-impact risks. The absence of major accidents at certain nuclear sites does not negate the inherent risks and the significant precautions necessary to ensure safety.

Comparing nuclear submarines to land-based reactors is not valid. Submarine reactors are small, designed for mobility, and heavily regulated for military use. Civilian reactors are larger and more complex, requiring different safety measures and infrastructure. Public concern and regulatory hurdles for civilian reactors remain significant.

Germany’s phase-out of nuclear power and heavy investment in renewables reflects a global trend prioritising sustainable and less risky energy sources. Countries are recognising the economic and environmental benefits of renewables, driving policy changes worldwide.

While nuclear energy can be part of a diversified energy strategy, it’s crucial to consider its significant costs, risks, and long-term challenges. Renewable energy technologies have advanced significantly, offering cost-effective, sustainable, and low-risk options. A holistic approach to energy policy should weigh all factors, including economic feasibility, safety, environmental impact, and technological potential, to make informed decisions for a sustainable future.

John,

What sort of footprint reduction is possible? This article discusses the issue:

https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants

My understanding is that the land area planned for wind and solar is about the area of Tasmania, which is a guaranteed catastrophe for Australia's endangered flora and fauna. In contrast, the contaminated land around Chernobyl is one of the best nature reserves in Eastern Europe. Also, with the passive safety in current reactors, meltdowns cannot happen.

That nuclear takes too long and costs too much are common criticisms, but with lifespans several times that of wind and solar, the economics of nuclear reactors are ultimately better.

Perhaps the greatest advantage of nuclear over wind and solar is energy security. A sizeable storm could easily wipe out half a gigawatt of solar, whereas a nuclear reactor could survive being hit by a commercial airliner. And how crazy is it to be totally reliant on China for our generating infrastructure? Should Australia choose nuclear, we would be spoiled for choice.

Out of interest, what do you think of Robert Idel's analysis "Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity"?

And a small nuclear reactor in a submarine is comparable with a small modular reactor on land such as already operating in China and under construction in Ontario. And nobody will be locked up in closed quarters for weeks at a time right alongside a military grade reactor on land. The article also points out what is happening in Germany and why they have to import a significant amount of energy from France, generated by nuclear. Their manufacturing industry is in decline and companies such as BMW are already looking at moving elsewhere with a reliable affordable power supply. Gott in Himmel, we might even see a French or Finnish Beemer or Merc down the track. Or Chinese (perish the thought).

For anyone interested, here is a link to the full paper by Idel presented at an IAEE conference:

https://iaee2021online.org/download/contribution/fullpaper/1145/1145%5C_fullpaper%5C_20210326%5C_222336.pdf

Table 4: Comparison of LCOE and LFSCOE

Technology________LCOE ____________________LFSCOE
_____________________________________Germany ____Texas
_______________[USD/MWh] ___________[USD/MWh] _[USD/MWh]
Biomass ____________95 __________________104 _______117
Coal (USC) __________76 ___________________78 ________90
Natural Gas CC ______38 ___________________35 ________40
Natural Gas CT ______67 ___________________39 ________42
Nuclear ____________82 __________________106 _______122
Solar PV ___________36 _________________1548 _______413
Wind ______________40 __________________504 _______291

Idel's analysis explains Germany's poor economic performance in comparison to countries using nuclear.

Fester,

Robert Idel's "Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity" offers a thorough analysis of electricity costs, incorporating both generation and system costs. However, as Idel even acknowledges there are significant weaknesses, as exemplified by Table 4.

Table 4 highlights discrepancies between LCOE and LFSCOE but is flawed due to several issues:

A major weakness of Table 4 is the absence of context or detailed breakdowns of the cost assumptions used for calculating LCOE and LFSCOE. This omission makes it difficult to understand the cost differences and validate the numbers. Additionally, while the table compares costs in Germany and Texas, it lacks insights into other regions, limiting the generalizability of the findings.

The table simplifies complex cost dynamics into single values for each technology and region, failing to capture the range of variability and uncertainty inherent in these estimates, especially for future projections. Furthermore, it excludes other relevant technologies, such as offshore wind, geothermal, or advanced nuclear, which restricts the comprehensiveness of the comparison.

LCOE and LFSCOE calculations likely depend on specific time frames and discount rates, but these are not detailed in the table. Variations in these parameters can significantly affect cost estimates, and their omission reduces transparency and robustness. Additionally, the table does not account for policy incentives, market conditions, or regulatory frameworks that can greatly impact the costs of different energy technologies, crucial for a realistic comparison.

To improve Table 4, it should include cost assumptions, expand the geographic and technological scope, present cost ranges or confidence intervals, and integrate policy and market impacts. Specifying time frames and discount rates would enhance the detail, transparency, and comprehensiveness of cost comparisons for different electricity generation technologies.

Thank you John. Yes, shortcomings is the norm with modelling, else we'd be living in Utopia. Nonetheless, Idel's analysis does give an indication that there are significant cost issues in integrating intermittent energy sources into an on demand grid, and those issues become very significant when you try to power the grid solely with intermittent sources.

One way of testing such analysis is by observing how things work in the real world, and I don't observe wind and solar working as well as nuclear. I wish it were otherwise as I like things to work. California is another example of a bad outcome from abandoning nuclear and rushing headlong into renewables.

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/skyrocketing-electricity-prices-test-california-s-energy-transition-80305308