Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds
(www.abc.net.au)
from L4s@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 21 Dec 2023 22:00
https://lemmy.world/post/9839251
from L4s@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 21 Dec 2023 22:00
https://lemmy.world/post/9839251
Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds::Renewable energy provides the cheapest source of new energy for Australia, a new draft report from the CSIRO and energy market operator has found.
threaded - newest
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The report says electricity generated by solar and on-shore wind projects is the cheapest for Australia, even when accounting for the costs of keeping the power grid reliable while they’re integrated into the system in greater proportions over time.
It estimates the changing costs of electricity produced by coal, gas, solar, wind, nuclear, bioenergy, hydrogen electrolysers, and storage such as pumped hydro and batteries.
CSIRO’s scientists say until recently, discussions about the potential cost of using nuclear energy in Australia have remained theoretical, with a lack of data from completed commercial projects hindering attempts to make worthwhile calculations.
This year’s draft GenCost report also provides more data on the estimated “integration costs” for variable renewable technologies.
It says most new-build technologies, like renewables, can enter an electricity system and provide reliable power by relying on existing capacity already deployed, but as their share increases, which forces the retirement of existing flexible capacity, the system will find it increasingly difficult to provide reliable power supply without additional investment.
"Mind you, the integrated system plan was released last week and it did emphasise that although it is likely to be a renewable future, we’ll still need gas as a supporting technology.
The original article contains 754 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Okay, but which power sources divert the most wealth to the working class (ie, which one provides more higher paying long term jobs)?
Despite what you learned from The Simpsons, jobs at powerplants of any kind make up an insignificant percentage of overall jobs and wouldn’t be an issue raised when considering much larger issues such as economies, environmental health, and the climate.
You may be confusing power generation with power infrastructure. Infrastructure has many more jobs but is generally not too concerned about the source so long as there.is power.
I was thinking of all the manhours needed to engineer and build a nuclear power plant (and all of its subcomponents) in the first place as well as maintenance and refueling.
Still very inconsequential to other concerns and opportunities.
Think of how much work a bee colony is spent on the Queen. Lots of jobs, sure, but an insignificant percentile when factoring the colony. So long as there is a queen of sorts.
Look, I’m all for renewable energy, where it makes sense. When I lived in southern California, BLM had so many wildlife restrictions in place, even for off-roading it was kinda nuts. A lot of it dealt with tortoises. Shortly after moving out of state, they started building solar farms all over the place. They’re massive multi dozens to hundreds of acres in size. Many of them in the same areas they got all worked up about for the tortoises…
Generating the power is only a third the battle. Still need to store and distribute that power. Factor in power demands etc.
What I’m trying to say is, as a species we need to get better. This is a good step. However, the power output of a single nuclear plant to the size shouldn’t be overlooked. We should stop fossil fuel reliance. Nuclear is at this point very understood. Yes some bad accidents happened in the past.
Storing energy isn’t as difficult as it’s made out to be. There’s molten salt, water pumps, boiling/heated water, discarded batteries, even hauling weights up a tall tower.
I’d like to see every building with solar panels and a backup battery to decentralize the grid.
I have a feeling this is where the suburban and rural grids are going. Dense urban areas are likely still going to need power produced off site.
What I’m more interested in will be farms in whether they’ll stay traditional producing food or convert solar farms where food production is not the main focus (see the hops farming solar panels for example).
It’s not difficult, but it is expensive and inefficient. There are very few financially viable battery technologies on the market currently, and although incremental improvements are happening on that front, there are also roadblocks (lack of raw materials like cobalt, toxic metals, thermal runaway fire risks), we really need a big breakthrough before we’ll see large adoption of batteries.
Please do the maths on "lifting weights up a tall tower.
Actually no, I’ll do it for you.
Let’s raise a metric ton 10 storeys. A storey is about 3 meters, making that 1000kg going 30 meters up. Mass (1000kg) x g (9.81m/s² ≈ 10m/s²) x height (30m) is about 300,000 joules of energy. We don’t use joules much, but they are the amount of energy you use is you draw 1w for 1 second. 300,000Ws. 3,600 seconds in an hour, so 83Wh.
Not kWh, Wh. You might run your TV for an hour.
You’d need to lift 100 tons 100 storeys to get it to kWh. 83kWh. A car battery worth of storage.
This is the reason pumped-hydro storage is a thing. To make lifting a mass a decent energy storage solution, you need a lot of mass. About the order of one lake of water. One plant I visited in Scotland has a reservoir of 10 million tons of water elevated 400 meters, to give it 7GWh of storage. That’s a fairly small one, and 36 men died building it back in the 50s/60s.
Gravity storage needs BIG numbers.
www.wired.com/…/energy-vault-gravity-storage/
…ieee.org/gravity-energy-storage-will-show-its-po…
It’s worth pointing out too that we aren’t using newer designs as much, which incorporate inherently safe features.
It’s actually ironic. If we built new reactors we could build breeder tractors to generate fuel for them from nuclear waste. This fear mongering of nuclear energy prevents us from reducing that number.
They’re going with older designs for cost reasons. Per the article, you’re taking something that is already not cost effective and proposing to make it even more expensive.
.
Let’s not nickel-and-dime the green transition. Nuclear energy has a role to play, and so do renewables. The most urgent thing now is to get as much electricity generation off fossil fuels as possible. Building nuclear power plants is an important part of this, especially in countries like China and India which would otherwise default to burning coal.
Nobody is suggesting we should.
Did you read the article? It only has a role to play if you’re into wasting money.
Can you explain why nuclear would be a part given how long it takes to deploy in comparison to renewables? Nuclear also has a habit of being behind schedule and costing more than projected.
The article is about Australia.
It really seems like people can’t get past the fact that while nuclear did have an unfair reputation, it’s just too late to make use of it.
Like yeah, it sucks that people blocked it and we built tons of fossil fuel power instead, but now we just have a better option and we can give up that fight.
Nuclear power and cognitive dissonance. That’s why people are still touting SMRs as the future, except they cost even more than traditional nuclear. Also, they don’t exist.
Ah yes, “X Technology doesn’t exist yet, so it’s stupid and useless and people that support its development are dumb”
You see it so often
Both China and Russia have built operational SMRs. (Not to mention the fact that the nuclear reactors we’ve had for decades in military submarines and ship are SMRs). They exist.
We don’t have enough data about the economics or SMRs to say for sure, most (but not all) economic models put LCOE for SMRs at half the cost of traditional PWR nuclear reactors.
It’s hard to judge from the current smr projects what the costs will be. The largest cost in building nuclear power is all the regulatory oversight. Every PWR plant is different and needs to go through the entire process from scratch. But once we have some successful and proven SMR designs. They can be mass produced from the same vetted and approved designs without needing to go through the massively expensive design process again.
SMRs are simpler too. Which makes them cheaper. They don’t need as many layers of redundant safety systems like traditional reactors do. Even in the worst case scenario, an SMR can meltdown and a person living next door would be perfectly safe.
All of that adds up to the a lot of potential cost savings if we mass produce them.
If we can build enough solar or other renewable power to replace fossil fuels without nuclear, great.
But most people have no idea just how much it’s going to take. We need to not only replace all the fossil fuels on the grid today. Plus have extra capacity to charge storage for use when its night and cover the added demand of all the electric cars, trucks, furnaces, everything else that needs to become electric.
We need to be building nuclear too. We can’t build enough solar and wind fast enough.
There are literally countries that went all in on nuclear power (france and switzerland come to mind), that now regret that play and are trying to transition away from them. Not for safety reasons, just because they are extremely expensive to operate and they become a money pit when renewables eat away at the base load that they were built to supply. You have nuclear plants paying people to take their power during the afternoons because they cant shut down quickly when the sun comes out.
who told you they are regretting ?
Look at energy maps. France has one of the greenest energy mixes around and sells energy to Germany(and others) which cannot produce sufficient power for itself in Winter.
Also Germany at many instances end up playing the neighbours to buy their electricity Or selling it lower then 0.01€/kWh on days of overproduction.
Reducing dependence on their aging expensive nuclear power infrastructure has been a campaign promise of every French president for the last decade. Switzerland just voted via referendum to shutter their nuclear fleet, Germany has phased out nukes almost entirely.
The reality of it is: They’re expensive. They generate waste which could theoretically be reused or even locked away in underground vaults, but it’s frequently just stored on site in reality. And whether the danger is real or perceived, no one wants to live next to a nuke, because if things go wrong, they go very wrong.
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see nukes make a comeback, I think they’re a valuable part of the energy mix. I actually know a guy in crypto who is trying to set up financially strained nuclear plants with on-site crypto miners to help them gain back some of that lost revenue from paying people to take power during light load periods. Which I think is a fantastic use case and a great way to make Bitcoin less environmentally destructive. There are other dispatchable loads that could fill the same niche (water desalinization, green hydrogen production).
But the unfortunate reality is that nuclear plants are dying right now, and unless something big changes they’re going to be driven out of existence by wind and solar.
they aren’t being driven out of existence by wind and solar that’s just wrong.
They are being driven out by prolitics and fear of the unknown.
Waste is problem which has been blown out of proportion in the media.
Nuclear is more expensive than wind comparable to solar. Major point in it’s favor is base load reliability. Look at capacity factors of the major base load providers. Solar is barely 26%/ Wind 24%/30% on-/off shore and Nuclear is 3x of that and highly predictable (as it’s downtime is planned maintainsnce).
Pure wind solar would have to be 300% average load(heating excluded!!!) with nearly 15day storage to have a blackout probability on under 1%.
I am genuinely all for Wind and Solar. Although my comments on this post might lead one to think otherwise.(independence of power for countries is a big + for Wind Solar which is a - for Nuclear)
But I am for fastest road to green electricity… more like just do everything to get rid of CO2 intense production methods.
Usually Germany is exporting more to France than it’s importing, 2023 is an exception this year it’s almost even, with a slight lead for France. Have some charts.
I am aware of that but that’s due to Compulsive exporting by shunting the prices to near 0€ as there is overproduction on sunny days.
if you look at the net value of exported vs imported electricity. Germany is strongly in deficit.
Also the overproducion isn’t great cause he renewabke the LCOE is calculated at install time but the actual cost it’s larger as you end up giving away the electricity (Very difficult to assess on the free market)
In addition to that Germany’s energy mix has 5-8x carbon intensity as that of France.
The German solution isn’t economical and by far not ecological. hey but they do better than Poland so that’s something.
Another great point!
For the love of God, look up the importance of maintaining grid frequency and which energy sources are reliable enough to do it.
Because renewables cannot. Our other option is to build insane infrastructure that can transmit DC long distances, which China has done. However, most countrie do not have the wealth or resources to do this.
Someone didn’t read the fucking article…
Just read the article again and it’s kind of suspicious the way the article ends by saying that natural gas will have to be part of the future energy mix. Seems like there might be some co-optation going on, or at least a failure to consider the costs of trying to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from the power supply using just wind and solar.
“It’s a good technology for filling in the gaps around renewables, as well as storage and other methods for making sure that power’s still reliable…”
This does make some sense, like having a diesel generator in your home for the few times a year the power goes out. It’s also useful for shutting up the, “sometimes the wind doesn’t blow and there’s no sun at night” crowd.
It’s also kind of a slight of hand. Fossil fuels shouldn’t be part of the mix at all, but the article just accepts the premise that they must. If natural gas or other fossil fuels aren’t allowed, then then the economic case for nuclear power is stronger.
As for needing needing natural gas to “fill in the gaps”, that’s just fossil fuel industry propaganda. It’s a non-issue with nuclear power. Whenever electrical demand drops you can just divert the power to make hydrogen/ammonia to store the extra energy or produce zero-emission fertilizer.
The article says “gas”, not “natural gas”. Australia already has plenty of gas infrastructure including pipelines so the situation might be similar as to Germany: First, use natural gas as the one fossil fuel that you’re using precisely because gas plants regulate fast and natural gas can be replaced by synthesised gas, then, once you have enough renewable capacity, actually do the switch. And boy oh boy has Australia potential for renewable generation, they’ll also want to produce tons of hydrogen anyway to smelt (and stop being a 3rd-world style economy that’s exporting raw ore).
Is this “gas” not a naturally occurring mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons consisting primarily of methane?
Sounds like an excuse to perpetuate the fossil fuel racket.
Well the issue with renewable power like wind and solar, is that they are not stable.
Having a battery in order to store the energy and release it when the demand is higher than production is one part of the solution.
But what happens when there wasn’t enough solar and wind to replenish the batteries if those batteries aren’t enough for the demand? Power shortages, which are pretty bad to get.
One of the solutions to this is natural gas for a simple reason : it’s very fast to start generating power or to stop. It’s also not very expensive, at least when there isn’t a war… The co2 equivalent emissions aren’t as high as coal either.
Nuclear power on the other hand is very hard to stop. Having a surplus of power on the grid is also very bad. Some of it could be used to recharge the batteries, but there would be some loss at some point.
Except that H2 can be electrolyzed from water and is an emerging carbon-free fuel source. The nuclear power can just stay on all the time and we let H2 production drop a little when the wind is low and the sky is dark.
It’s another solution, now there is also issues with costs. However with time the costs can be reduced.
For hydrogen based on this video : youtu.be/M0fnEsz4Ks0 there could be some hope for large hydrogen storage for a smaller cost (not used in cars tho, due to the weight).
Hydrogen production however is/was very ineficient. However there is also some hope for this youtu.be/m0d6iljzzEI
So with this, maybe it could be an interesting solution to store energy.
Tho I’m not sure how efficient it would be to produce energy from that stored hydrogen, and how efficient it could be for the entire hydrogen production/storing/electricity production chain.
Even if the current technology for producing zero-emission hydrogen is relatively inefficient, that’s not really such a problem since it’s a zero-emission process.
Especially when the bulk of your hydrogen production comes from excess energy generation
The issue isn’t emissions, it’s costs. Sadly we don’t live in a dream world, and everything has a cost.
Even running excess production into hydrogen production has costs (transport, storage, infrastructure…).
The current (not taking in consideration the new tech currently in testing) beeing highly ineficient creates many cost issues.
Less effieicnt means that more power needs to be used to get that amount of hydrogen, reducing the gains on electricity surplus.
The storage beeing ineficient means a higher running cost, more space used, less of that space…
The transport beeing ineficient also increases the running costs, but also the emissions if the transport uses fossil fuel. Of it uses hydrogen, well it increases the running cost even more. That expensive produced hydrogen is used for transport…
The electricity production from hydrogen being ineficient increases the used hydrogen to get the same energy amount, which then increases the costs because more of that expensive hydrogen has to be used.
So taking all this into account, being “clean” doesn’t necessarily make it is viable compared to other storage or energy production tech.
The costs have to be taken in account because resources don’t appear magically.
Mining Uranium has a cost. Buying it from abroad has a cost, paying people to maintain all that has a cost…
The relative costs are just a question of policy. Legislators could make fossil fuels prohibitively expensive tomorrow if they really wanted. Anyway, if Australia doesn’t have a good source of fissile material (I have no idea), that is a fair point against nuclear power there. However, that just means other big, ambitious emission-free power projects should be considered instead, like deep-well geothermal, concentrated solar, and coerced rooftop solar. Seemingly cost effective half measures that keep fossil fuels in the mix are a mistake.
There is no shortage of bullshit from budding energy companies.
The only people writing articles about energy are lobby groups.
There is a propaganda campaign going on in Australia at the moment from the natural gas lobbyists with ads on the TV where they’re pimping themself out as “partners in the transition to renewable energy”.
Also this report is being used by both sides of politics here, one saying it rightfully justifies focusing on renewables and the other claiming it’s being “used unfairly as a weapon” against nuclear energy. Also, the latter is pimping nuclear instead largely because they’re controled by mining companies who have a lot of political influence here oh and we also happen to dig that shit out of the ground.
Energy generation that works most of the time is more expensive than energy generation that only works some of the time, big surprise. Mason problem is that we need energy all the time and currently can’t store it on a grid level.
More like fission requires massive shielding, tight control of procedures, waste storage sites that don’t exist, and in-depth inspections in order to remain safe.
Yeah, I don’t disagree but it’s a proven technology that can provide a baseline load for the grid. Something we can’t yet do reliably with renewables
There are tons of options for that, mainly energy storage such as batteries, hydro, and green hydrogen. Nuclear is not needed and too expensive among other things.
.
Hydo is limited in where it can be used and where it can be used if often already is. Batteries can’t yet provide a grid level base load. I don’t know much about green hydrogen but there’s usually a loss of energy when converting from one medium to another.
This is basically common knowledge now. CSIRO report pointed to similar conclusions for several years, at least since 2021 when I started to notice.
What is relevant to real life (since Australia probably never will get nukes) is that even assignning system costs only onto VRE, they are still almost the same LCoE in a 90% VRE system. This is again consistent with previous reports.
After Australia pass 100% VRE, exporting green hydrogen in the regional market will probably handle the last remaining flexibility needs. Exporting electricity directly to SE Asia is less likely but still a possibility.
Renewables cannot main grid frequency, which is crucial in America. We transmit AC power. You either accept nuclear or accept no electricity. This is fear mongering propaganda to keep us dependent on fossil fuels because that’s the only other way to maintain grid frequency.
This article also specifically says IN AUSTRALIA. So it isn’t even a comprehensive statement. We need nuclear. Get over it.
I eagerly await all the Nuclear fanboys to explain why this unfairly overestimates the cost of nuclear or was put out by the fossil fuel industry to <checks notes>… make renewables look good.