Mike Thornton GAICD’s Post

Per latest GenCost report, CSIRO estimates the Australian first large-scale nuclear power plant could cost $17 bn, and would not be operational until at least 2040 if a decision to pursue nuclear in Australia were made in 2025. While a large-scale reactor would produce cheaper power than the small modular reactors, the electricity would still cost 1.5x to 2.0x as much as firmed renewable energy. The expected capital cost of a large-scale nuclear plant in 2023 is $8,655 per kW, being significantly higher than that of wind and solar backed by battery storage. Moreover, this capital cost can only be achieved if Australia commits to a continuous building programme and only after an initial higher cost unit is constructed. While nuclear energy can operate continuously and emit virtually no greenhouse gases, the high costs of building and operating nuclear facilities raise questions about the viability of developing this energy source in Australia and its potential contribution to the 2050 zero emissions target. #EnergyEquityEnvironment https://lnkd.in/gzkTXws9

📈 South Korea plans major additions of renewables and nuclear power by the late 2030s to meet surging demand 📉 ⚡ The nation aims to lift renewables to a third of its power mix by 2038, up from 9% in 2022 ⚡ 🔋 Nuclear power is set to become South Korea's largest source of electricity generation, reducing coal and natural gas use 🔋 🏭 South Korea needs 4.9 gigawatts more nuclear power by 2038, adding to the 5.6 gigawatts already under construction 🏭 🌐 "The expansion of the grid is the most critical challenge we face today," said Jerng Dong-wook, ministry committee chairman 🌐 🛠️ Proposals include upgrading existing energy infrastructure, with further government scrutiny, parliamentary debate, and public hearings needed 🛠️ #SouthKorea #renewables #nuclearpower #energystrategy #datacenters #semiconductors #climategoals #gridexpansion #energydemand #sustainablefuture

New analysis clearly shows a nuclear future for Queensland doesn’t work - not for the state, and not for solar households across Queensland. Nuclear is so slow that by the time a single nuclear power station was approved, built, and operational in Queensland, we would no longer need it. In fact, we would have to switch off the equivalent of 45,000 household solar systems to make way for the excess energy from just one nuclear power plant to operate in 2040. Switching off cheap renewables to make way for expensive nuclear doesn't make sense. We need to stick with the program and deliver, cheap, safe and fast renewable energy to power the Sunshine State. Read the full story and report: https://lnkd.in/gP672kyQ

A thought-provoking statement about the nuclear vs renewables debate, which is true enough to seem unassailable, is that pro-renewables people should doubt the CSIRO's estimates of the cost of installing nuclear because the other option (100% firmed renewables) hasn't been fully costed. This sounds great, and caused me to pounder a day or three, but it's sadly bunkum. Mostly. The difference between estimates of nuclear installs of billions-dollars reactors, and estimates of installing 100% renewable and battery-firmed grids in Australia, is that the first one hasn't been done and the second has. We have good projections of ramping renewables to 100%, much better than nuclear. It's a great distraction, to claim that because your risk is the greatest and your uncertainty is the worst, that because there is some uncertainty in the other choice, it should rank equally with your preferred option. No it shouldn't.

Germany has one of the most ambitious energy transition policies dubbed ‘Die Energiewende’ to replace nuclear- and fossil power with renewables such as wind-, solar- and biopower. The climate gas emissions were reduced by 25% in the 2002 through 2022 study period. By triangulating available information sources, the total nominal expenditures are estimated at EUR 387 bn, and the associated subsidies are some EUR 310 bn giving a total nominal expenditures of EUR 696 bn. Alternatively, Germany could have kept the existing nuclear power in 2002 and possibly invested in new nuclear capacity. The analysis of these two alternatives shows that Germany could have reached its climate gas emission target by achieving a 73% cut in emissions on top of the achievements in 2022 and simultaneously cutting the spending in half compared to Energiewende. Thus, Germany should have adopted an energy policy based on keeping and expanding nuclear power. Source: https://lnkd.in/d__yqEkn #thermalrest #energy #variablerenewableenergy #VRE #nuclear

Building a large-scale nuclear power plant in Australia would cost at least A$8.5 billion and take 15 years to complete, producing electricity at roughly twice the cost of renewable sources, according to a report from the #CSIRO. The GenCost report found nuclear energy's costs were similar to gas- and coal-fired generation with carbon capture and storage but still about 50% more expensive than large-scale wind and solar power supported by battery technologies.  More at #Proactive #ProactiveInvestors #nuclear #renewables http://ow.ly/3Oyu105tZ31

Two big energy reports dropped this week. Spoiler: it’s not good for nuclear. Today, the CSIRO released GenCost – their annual report about the costs for new technology to power the grid. ✅The CSIRO’s Cheapest Energy: - 1st: Solar PV $45-79 per MWh - 2nd: Wind $66-109 per MWh ❌The CSIRO’s Most Expensive Energy: - Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – up to eight times more expensive than wind and solar. The CSIRO also had these warnings about large scale nuclear: - the earliest deployment in Australia would be 2040 - the cost (up to $226 per MWh in 2040) risks doubling because we don’t have an existing industry This is serious because we don’t have time. Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)’s Electricity Statement of Opportunities (ESOO) – the 10 year forecast of the NEM capacity needs - came out yesterday. It makes it clear that we need new projects to come online in the next ten years to make sure we keep the energy system running. Nuclear is far too risky for Australia. Slow expensive technology will not power Australia. Our government backs the experts on climate and energy. #cleanenergy #news #auspol #renewableenergy #nuclear

Summary of article: Taiwan is planning to shut down its nuclear power plants by 2025, raising concerns about its energy future. The government aims to transition to renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, to replace the nuclear power. However, many experts worry that the country may not be ready for this shift, especially since Taiwan still relies heavily on fossil fuels. Critics argue that without enough renewable energy infrastructure, the closure of nuclear plants could lead to energy shortages. The government insists it is on track to meet its energy goals, but the success of this plan remains uncertain. As Taiwan moves forward, the balance between energy safety, environmental concerns, and energy supply will be closely watched. Original Article in full: Taiwan is only months away from shutting off all nuclear power, but some question whether the tech powerhouse is ready By Kathleen Calderwood, Xin-yun Wu and Fletcher Yeung in Lanyu and Hsinchu, Taiwan https://lnkd.in/g6AvJ_he #Taiwan #Nuclear #RenewableEnergy

Comparison of Danish energy system based on either solar+wind or nuclear. "The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of #nuclear and the variability of #renewable energy sources. However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour. For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power." Jakob Zinck Thellufsen, Henrik Lund, Brian Vad Mathiesen, Poul Alberg Østergaard, Peter Sorknæs, Steffen Nielsen, Poul Thøis Madsen, Gorm Bruun Andresen  H/T Doug Parr https://lnkd.in/eDpdmjrt

Nuclear power would be by far the most expensive form of electricity generation for Australia. That’s according to the latest GenCost report from CSIRO, which also projects that nuclear power would take at least 15 years to develop, including construction. Both large-scale nuclear, which could cost $8.6 billion to build, and small modular reactors are projected to be far more expensive and time-consuming than the renewables that already generate 40 per cent of Australia’s electricity. Why waste time pursuing an expensive technology Australia doesn’t need? As suggested by the Electricity Security Statement of Opportunities report published by Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) yesterday, Australia needs to double down on renewables and storage to achieve a clean, secure energy system for the future. To join us and help build that future, click here: https://lnkd.in/gz2mjGSX #cleanenergy