Foxy,

I'd draw to your attention John Kehoe's (the guy that Simon Holmes a Court wants to keep silent) opinion piece criticising the CSIRO's latest gencost report:

https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/the-flaws-in-csiro-s-anti-nuclear-pro-renewables-report-20240611-p5jktp

In response, Peter Mayfield, executive director, Energy, Environment and Resources CSIRO, stated:

"The article advocates for a total systems analysis. This analysis is important but is a significantly more expensive, extensive and detailed study, which is beyond the intent and scope of the GenCost Report."

This is in effect an admission that a total system analysis might have shown nuclear power to be cheaper than renewables, which is not surprising as it is a real world observation, such as in Ontario.

I'd also draw to your attention a brief talk by Stephen Wilson about why achieving net zero with wind and solar is probably impossible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZT5WjnT4fE

You are correct in stating that nuclear is five to ten times the cost of solar per unit of generation, but when you look at the cost of making solar dispatchable the cost becomes far greater than nuclear.

ttbn,

Yes, coal is the cheapest power source, but for low carbon dispatchable power nuclear is a proven low cost option.

Some see the debate over renewables a political one. I see it as an attempt by some Aussie billionaires and Chinese wind and solar manufacturers to con Australians out of many hundreds of billions, leaving a dysfunctional electricity grid and a damaged environment in its wake.

Fester,

John Kehoe raises several valid points about potential biases in the CSIRO's GenCost report, but his framing suggests a stronger accusation of bias than the evidence might support.

Firstly, Kehoe highlights that comparing costs over a 30-year period can undervalue long-lived nuclear plants, implying an intentional bias against nuclear power. However, the CSIRO's use of a 30-year period aligns with the typical timeframe for commercial financing, which is a practical and common approach. He also argues that modern nuclear plants can have higher capacity factors than the CSIRO assumes, suggesting the organisation is downplaying nuclear efficiency. While the capacity factor can indeed be higher, the CSIRO might use conservative estimates based on historical performance and regulatory requirements to reflect cautious planning.

Kehoe criticises the use of temporarily high coal prices, which can distort comparisons. The CSIRO likely used recent data, which is a standard practice, even if it captures a temporary spike. Additionally, Kehoe points out that the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) metric has limitations in accounting for intermittency and integration costs of renewables. While LCOE is a standard and widely accepted metric, it does have its limitations, which the CSIRO acknowledges by stating that it is a "simple screening tool" and not a substitute for detailed system modeling.

Another critique is the exclusion of residual economic value for nuclear plants after 30 years, which can undervalue their economic potential. Estimating residual value involves uncertainties and complexities, which might have led the CSIRO to exclude it to avoid speculative calculations.

Kehoe’s use of strong language, such as “policy-based evidence,” suggests a deliberate agenda, making his critique seem more like an accusation of dishonesty than a call for nuanced analysis. By not presenting potential justifications for the CSIRO’s choices or acknowledging the inherent uncertainties in such analyses, Kehoe's argument appears one-sided. He suggests that the CSIRO’s methodological choices are aimed at supporting a specific policy stance rather than reflecting cautious planning or practical constraints.

Kehoe's observations stem from more benign methodological choices or practical constraints than he implies by failing to mention them.

There is no longer any valid argument that nuclear is too expensive.
The CSIRO's Gencost was completely debunked.
I would point out that the new large nuclear station in Finland cost
wait for it; $9 billion dollars. Not sure if that is US or Aus.
Either way it is a bargain compared to W&S.
The cost argument is easily solved, just call for tenders for a 2GW station.
I am sure Westinghouse will jump at it.
Foxy, they do not just make refrigerators, hi !
Our problem is we are too late starting after next election.
We will be in deep dodo before we can fix our power system.
The quickest way to keep our industry going buy a few off the shelf gas plants.
An unnecessary expense but inevitable as the timescale for nuclear
is too long. The gas plants will just be a makeshift fill in.

There is a way that might be possible that was suggested.
Each coal fired plant usually has four units, each comprising it own
coal handling gear, its own boiler and its own turbine.
In a 2 Gw plant each unit is 500 Megawatts.
Just co-incidently, or was it by design, the larger Small Nuclear
plants are 500 Megawatts.
Replace the coal gear, and the boiler with a small modular reactor
and the heat exchanger will produce steam or the turbine.
My friend Keith Alder suggested this to our government back in the 70s.
He was an experienced nuclear power station designer and builder.

The politicians should all just SHUT UP and listen to someone who
is a suitable engineer. Politicians are ignorant nobodies that have
never done a days real work and are unqualified.

Hmmm. I think my last remark might have been bit hard on Dutton as
anyone who has been a street cop has certainly done a days work !

The Coalitions proposal, I wont call it policy as it lacks substance, the how's where's and what's have not been answered. It appears to be based on political considerations rather than any practical requirements. Already the Victorian Liberal Party has stated its opposition to any suggestion of nuclear power plants being located in the Latrobe Valley, an obvious site in Victoria, and the Queensland Liberal leader David Crisafulli declared; "nuclear is not on the agenda" NSW former Liberal treasurer Matt Kean, dismissed the whole nuclear idea as "hugely expensive" State Labor governments will do the same.

The energy industry has stated its unwillingness to be a party to nuclear, AGL boss Damien Nicks voiced his companies opposition, and other energy executives, fund managers and investors do not think nuclear energy is financially viable in Australia, and are not willing to invest.

For Peter Dutton and his gang its time to put up or shut up.

Bazz,

Looking at South Australia, with wind and solar you have to have backup gas anyway, so building gas plants and not all the other stuff would save much expenditure.

https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem